Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,MR. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lord](Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Gosport Corporation Bill [Lords].

King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association Bill [Lords].

Oswestry Corporation Bill [Lords].

Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords].

Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London Passenger Transport Board Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Barmouth Urban District Council [Lords].

Milford Haven and Tenby Water[Lords].

Saint Peter's Chapel Stockport [Lords].

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Bristol Waterworks Bill,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Smethwick Oldbury Rowley Regis and Tipton Transport Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines what further measures have been taken to promote research into the problems of extracting oil from coal, following upon the report of the Falmouth Committee; and whether any steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to establish a plant to develop the Fisher-Tropsch process in this country?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14th March to a question by the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins).

Mr. Griffiths: Have the Government made any proposals for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the report?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. That rests with private enterprise. What the Government did was to carry out the principal recommendation by extending the guaranteed preference under the Finance Act last year.

Mr. Dalton: Have the Government left the matter entirely to private enterprise?

Captain Crookshank: The House gave a guaranteed preference for a large number of years, which represents great assistance to any people undertaking this work.

LONGWALL FACES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that at the conference of delegates of Lancashire and Cheshire mineworkers, held on Saturday, 1st April, a resolution was carried calling upon colliery owners and the Mines Department to give immediate attention to the provision of more outlets on long-wall faces; that the present methods are inadequate to meet the danger arising from a weighting roof; and what steps he is taking to meet this request?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. The resolution, however, voices primarily an objection to the use of metal chock release devices, and the question of the number of exit roads from longwall faces is raised consequentially. On the first point I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 28th March. The second point was dealt with in evidence to the Royal Commission on Safety, but the Commission made no recommendation in the matter, and I am advised that, in general, the limitation of the number of gate-ways on long wall faces tends to ensure greater safety from falls of ground, since a large proportion of the accidents from falls of roof at the face occur at and about gate-ends.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this matter is causing great concern to mineworkers, and will he instruct the Mines Inspector to make a special report on this particular question and see what can be done?

Captain Crookshank: I think we have all the information necessary on this question.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is uneasiness on the part of the men working on these longwall faces, and that if he does not speed up legislation to deal with this matter, there will be a crash one of these days on these faces?

Mr. Tinker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give

notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mining districts in which agreements have been concluded for holidays with pay; the approximate number of workers covered by such agreements; and how many are already in operation or are to operate this year?

Captain Crookshank: Agreements for holidays with pay affecting the main classes of workpeople have been concluded and are in operation in the 14 principal mining districts, and in two others payments were made in 1938, although agreements have not been signed. The approximate number of workers affected is 733,000. Full information is available in the statement placed in the Library as a result of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walls-end (Miss Ward) on 1st November last.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whether in every case the cost of these holidays goes into the ascertainment?

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Member had better look at the full statement in the Library, and then if there is anything further he would like me to ascertain, I will do so.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that in all these districts the miners, to the extent of 87 per cent., pay for their own holidays with pay?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot undertake to answer questions about wage arrangements without notice. If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I will do my best to answer it. All the information which I have is given in the statement in the Library. Perhaps the hon. Member will study that.

Mr. T. Smith: Is it not a fact that in all the agreements there is a penalty clause?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBERTA.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make a statement with regard to the financial position of the Province of Alberta?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the permission of my hon. Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL RE-FORT.

Following is the answer:

Since 1st November last, when my predecessor made a statement on the position in reply to a question by my hon. Friend, there has been no substantial change in the financial situation of Alberta, so far as I am aware. It appears from a Final Report on the Public Accounts of the Province for the financial year ended 31st March, 1938, that the overall cash surplus (excluding new borrowings, debt redemption, etc.) at the end of the year amounted to $1,083,494. According to an interim financial report recently issued by the Government of Alberta, the cash surplus on 31st December, 1938, was $565,031 as compared with $217,607 on 31st December, 1937, and the net funded and unfunded debt of the Province on 31st December, 1938, was $156,444,630 as compared with $157,015,416 on 31st March, 1938, and $156,747,689 on 30th June, 1938. I understand that the Provincial Treasurer of Alberta, in his Budget speech on 27th February last, estimated that there would be an overall deficit on income and capital accounts combined for the financial year ending 31st March, 1940, of $1,150,107.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the relations between this country and Eire?

Sir T. Inskip: There are no new de-developments to report as regards relations between the two Governments.

Mr. Lunn: While we can find time for discussions with foreign countries, is there nothing the Government can take up with the Irish Free State to make arrangements for more peaceful relations between this country and them?

Sir Ronald Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. de Valera has announced that his policy, if this country were engaged in war, would be neutrality, that he has offered this inducement to Northern Ireland to come in with Eire,

and that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has immediately rejected the suggestion with contempt?

Mr. Logan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there were more friendly relations with all the people in Ireland, it would be better for England?

Sir T. Inskip: I think His Majesty's Government took a very great step a year or so ago to make friendly relations between the two countries.

Mr. Logan: I do not think it is necessary at this point to mention the Curragh incident, but still, it ought to be borne in mind.

Sir R. Ross: Is it not amusing that the hon. Gentleman should have to go back 20 years?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has now received a report from the Commission of Government in Newfoundland on the state of employment and poverty in that country; and, if not, will he call for such a report immediately?

Sir T. Inskip: I have now received the Report of the Commission of Government for the calendar year 1938 and will arrange for it to be presented to Parliament as soon as it has been printed. I have also had the advantage of a full discussion with the Governor and two members of the Commission of Government concerning conditions in the Island.

Mr. Lunn: When may we expect to have the report?

Sir T. Inskip: Very shortly. It is purely a question of the ability of the printers to complete their work.

Mr. Paling: Does not the report bear out the accusations made in the House a week or two ago about the appalling poverty in Newfoundland?

Sir T. Inskip: No doubt there is a great deal of poverty there. The hon. Member will be supplied with a good deal of information in the report.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate to hon. Members a complete report of the "Daily Express" revelations?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the report of the delegation sent by the International Labour Organisation to study labour conditions in South Africa has been presented to him; and whether he has any comments to make upon it?

Sir T. Inskip: I have seen the report to which the hon. Member refers, but, as he will be aware, it is a report to the Governing Body of the International Labour Office and I understand that it has not yet been considered by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTED GOODS (MARKING).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue instructions that all goods entering Great Britain should be clearly marked with the country of origin?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on 28th March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton).

RIBBON MANUFACTURE (GERMAN AND JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Sir A. Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty under which British ribbon manufacturers contend, owing to the competition of German goods which obtain 40 per cent. export premium, and of Japanese goods which are offered at half the price of a British manufacturer's initial cost; and whether, in the interests of the industry, he will prohibit the imports of these goods from those two countries?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that British ribbon manufacturers experience competition from imports from Germany and Japan, but I would point out that the aggregate of the imports of ribbons from these two countries has not increased in recent years. I have no power to prohibit the imports of these goods.

Sir A, Knox: Can the Government do nothing to help these firms, which have very few looms occupied at present?

Mr. Stanley: If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind, I should be glad to have it.

MINISTER'S VISITS, FOREIGN CAPITALS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give the House on the recent visit of the British trade delegation to various foreign countries?

Mr. Shin well: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can now make a statement on the conversations between himself: and the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Polish Government?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 6th April in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask to whom we should put questions about the conversations taking place between the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department and other countries? Ought questions to be put to him or to his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Stanley: Of these two questions, one was put to me and the other to my right hon. Friend. For the convenience of the House, I answered both.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance as to what should be done in these circumstances? Are we to address questions of this kind to the appropriate Minister or to some other Member of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: To the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to my point of Order. Is not the Minister in this case the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who conducted the conversations and is best capable of giving an answer?

Mr. Speaker: One of these questions was addressed to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department.

Mr. Shinwell: May I point out that Question 55 was addressed to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, but that it was replied to by the President of the Board of Trade, who has nothing to do with the matter":

SPAIN (DEBTS).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement as to the position and prospects of the Anglo-Spanish clearing arrangements?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14th March to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), to which I have nothing at present to add.

Sir J. Mellor: Are there not funds available for distribution in the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Office in London, and is it proposed to make an early distribution of these funds?

Mr. Stanley: If my hon. Friend will look at previous answers, he will see the debt position explained. It is not exactly correct to say that there is money in hand for distribution.

MUTTON AND LAMB (IMPORTS).

Mr. Snadden: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the percentage reductions in supplies of Dominion and foreign mutton and lamb announced on 16th February last were intended to apply to the respective quotas or to the actual totals of these imports in the preceding year; and whether, in deciding upon these percent ages, he had taken account of the large increase in mutton and lamb imports between1936 and 1938?

Mr. Stanley: The percentage reductions apply in the case of the Dominions to the actual imports in the last 12-monthly period, and in the case of foreign countries to the basic quota requirements in the current year.

Mr. Snadden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that these reductions which represent less than one-half of the increase on imports in the past two years are sufficient to influence the course of prices of home-killed mutton and lamb?

Mr. Stanley: The figure was arrived at after consideration of the probable absorption of mutton and lamb in the United Kingdom during the course of that year.

Mr. T. Williams: Before these reductions were decided upon, was the Food Defence Minister consulted?

Mr. Stanley: I was the Food Defence Minister at the time.

Mr. Paling: Can the Minister give an assurance that the reduction in supplies will not affect the ability of working-class people to get reasonably cheap mutton and lamb?

Mr. T. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman was Food Defence Minister at the time the reductions were decided upon, had he in mind recent events in Europe; and, if so, is he satisfied that the supplies available will be sufficient for an emergency?

Mr. Stanley: What I had in mind was the great value, from the point of view of food supplies in an emergency, of the existence of numbers and prosperity in the sheep industry in this country and the fact that the best reserve of mutton and lamb would be in the British field rather than in the foreign refrigerator.

Mr. John Morgan: Was this reduction effected with the consent of the Dominions concerned?

Mr. Stanley: With their acquiescence.

IRON-ORE AND PETROL (EMPIRE EXPORTS TO GERMANY).

Mr. Sexton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of iron-ore and petrol have been imported by Germany from the British Empire during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: The quantities of iron-ore imported into Germany from countries in the British Empire during 1936, 1937and 1938 were, in thousand metric tons, 355, 1,027 and 1,591, respectively; the corresponding figures for imports of petroleum were, also in thousand metric tons, 35, 21 and 18, respectively.

Mr. Sexton: Is it not about time the British Empire ceased to act as powder monkey for these dictators?

Mr. Stanley: None of the iron ore came from the United Kingdom.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced by exhibitors and/or renters in obtaining sufficient attractive British films to comply with the quota provisions of the


Cinematograph Films Act, 1938; will he give particulars of any recommendations that have been made to him by the Films Council appointed under this Act for the purpose of making any variation of these clauses; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Stanley: I have received no representations in the sense of the first part of the hon. Member's question. As to the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member of 4th April last.

Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman had brought to his notice the very curious position in which exhibitors are finding themselves through not being able to obtain sufficient suitable British films?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any increase in Anglo-American trade since the Anglo-American Trade Treaty was signed?

Mr. Stanley: In view of the short time which has elapsed since the entry into force of the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States, it is too early to draw any definite conclusions from the statistics at present available. There are, however, already signs of a considerable expansion in exports of United Kingdom goods to the United States. The increase in the first two months of this year, as compared with the same period of 1938, exceeded£1,000,000. Imports from the United States, on the other hand, show a substantial decline, but it must be remembered that imports from this source were at a peak level last year.

SHIPBUILDING.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to make retrospective the grant of financial assistance to shipbuilding firms and shipowners where orders for the construction of new tonnage have been placed?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the passage in my statement on 28th March which deals with this point.

Mr. Shinwell: On what authority does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make these grants retrospective? Does it not require legislation?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman remembers the passage in my speech or looks at it again, he will see that all I have said is that I shall propose to Parliament, when I introduce legislation, that these grants shall be made retrospective. It will be for Parliament to decide whether they accept that proposal or not.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the representations urging that ships built with the assistance of the Government subsidy shall be coal-burning ships; and whether he will make this one of the conditions for the payment of the subsidy?

Mr. Stanley: I am receiving a deputation on this subject to-day.

MILLING INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the public interests are threatened since the milling interests have become bakery owners, he will request the Food Council to investigate, and intervene if necessary, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Food Prices?

Mr, Stanley: If my hon. Friend can furnish me with evidence that the public interests are being threatened, I will bring it to the notice of the Food Council.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not my right hon. Friend suffering from a certain unaware-ness? Can he inform us whether the Food Council are an active body or not? If they are, why do they not act and inquire into this matter as was laid down by the Royal Commission? Will my right hon. Friend very kindly give me an answer?

Mr. Stanley: I will give an answer, and all my answers are given very kindly. The Food Council is an active body, but they are not in possession of the information, or, perhaps I should say, the suspicions of the hon. Member, which are not always found to be well-founded. What I have said is that if he will furnish me with evidence of the accuracy of his fears, I will pass it on to the Food Council who, I have no doubt, will make active inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among a large body of well-informed opinion, the view is held that the activities of the milling combines are highly damaging to both producer and consumer; and what activity does the Government propose in that respect?

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman should bring that question to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) who is associated with one of the largest of those combines.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we all protest against is the activity of these price-fixing associations?

MARINE DIESEL ENGINES (IMPORTS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the marine diesel engines imported from Ger many during the past year have been subsidised by the German Government; and whether it is his intention to reconsider the free importation of subsidised goods into registered shipyards?

Mr. O. Stanley: I have no information in regard to the first part of the question. I do not think it would be desirable to limit in the way my hon. Friend suggests the importation of goods used for shipbuilding.

Mr. Liddall: In view of the international situation, will my right hon. Friend consider withdrawing the right of free entry of these goods into registered shipyards in this country from foreign countries?

Mr. Stanley: In view of the international situation, what I want to do is to see that as many ships as possible are built as quickly as possible. I am not prepared, therefore, to withdraw facilities which are utilised solely for that purpose.

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the import into this country during the last three years, in volume and in value, of marine diesel engines from Germany and from other foreign countries, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: During the year 1938 imports into the United Kingdom of marine internal combustion engines of diesel, semi-diesel and similar types, including parts thereof, consigned from Germany

amounted to 1,375 tons, valued at£121,000, while imports consigned from other foreign countries amounted to 5,621 tons, valued at£438,000. I regret that comparable particulars for earlier years are not available, as such imports were not separately recorded prior to 1938.

Mr. Liddall: Am I to take it from that reply that the policy of the Government is to foster conditions whereby British ships are dependent for their engines on foreign supplies?

Mr. Stanley: They are not dependent for their engines on foreign supplies, but, as any hon. Gentleman who has any acquaintance with shipbuilding knows, there are cases in which it is only possible to get orders in this way.

BRITISH SHIPS (GERMAN PURCHASES).

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the pro posed sale to Germany of the steamers "Laleham," "Peckham," and "Meopham"; and whether, in view of his recent pronouncement on British shipping, he will take steps to stop this sale?

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information in connection with the selling of three British ships, the Laleham," "Peckham," and the "Meopham," with a carrying capacity of 24,000 tons, to a German firm; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information about the sale to German owners of the steamships "Laleham," "Peckham," and "Meopham"; and about the personal control of the Alpha and Apex steamship companies which sold them?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that the sale of these three ships to German owners has been completed and the British registers closed, and that it is the intention of the sellers to build at least one new vessel in replacement in this country. Representatives of the company were informed on two occasions that while the Board of Trade had no power to prevent the transfer of British merchant ships to foreign flags, the Board would prefer that ships of this kind should, in present circumstances, remain under the British flag.


Although the Board of Trade have, at present, no power to prevent the sale of British ships to foreigners, it will be made a condition of the assistance proposed for the shipping industry that any vessels which the owners may wish to scrap or to sell to foreign buyers shall be offered to the Government in connection with the scheme for a reserve of tonnage. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the directors of the Alpha Steamship Company, Limited, and of the Apex Steamship Company, Limited.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to see that no assistance is given by the Government to this Alpha Company in the building of the new ship?

Mr. Stanley: That is certainly a point that I shall have in mind.

Mr. Thorne: Were the three ships in question offered for sale to the Government?

Mr. Stanley: Until legislation is passed not only is there no compulsion on shipowners to offer ships, but I have no power to accept them. In other instances where shipowners have had offers from abroad and have approached the Board of Trade, on being informed that we should prefer that, in existing circumstances and especially in view of, we hope, the passing by this House of legislation allowing this reserve of tonnage, the ships should remain on the British register, in those cases they have acceded to our request.

Mr. Thorne: Am I to understand then that you have no power and no authority to purchase these ships?

Mr. Stanley: We have no power to purchase these ships. I gave an indication to the House in my statement the other day that we desired the authority of this House to create such power, but until the Bill is passed into law, we have, of course, no authority to do it.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the owners of these ships?

Mr. Stanley: I have said that I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the directors.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that something like 90 per cent, of the capital

of the companies which sold these ships is foreign owned?

Mr. Stanley: I could not give an answer offhand, but I believe the capital is largely British.

Sir John Haslam: Why not give the names now, so as to give the necessary publicity and so that they can get in the evening papers?

Mr. Stanley: No doubt the evening papers will be able to get them in time.

Hon. Members: Read them out.

Mr. Stanley: There are two companies concerned, one of which owns two of the ships, and one the other. The directors of the Alpha Steamship Company, Limited, the former owners of the steamships "Laleham" and "Peck-ham," are H. B. Logan (British), A. B. Peck (British), and E. Geraci (naturalised British subject). The directors of the Apex Steamship Company, Limited, the former owners of the steamship "Meopham," are H. B. Logan (British), E. Geraci (naturalised British subject), and Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson (British).

Mr. Dalton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider withdrawing the naturalisation of this person?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING VESSELS (BOAT DRILLS).

Mr. Adamson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider placing before the Advisory Committee on Safety Precautions at Sea the question of making it an obligation upon owners of fishing vessels to carry out practice by the crews in the launching and manning of the lifeboats at stated periods, so as to ensure the seaworthiness of the boats and the efficiency of the crews in safety measures?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. The question of carrying out of boat drills on fishing vessels is under consideration, and it is hoped shortly to submit draft standard regulations to the interests concerned and later to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSEHOLD FOOD STORAGE.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the desire of many


people in this country to assist the security of the nation by increasing the amount of food stored in their households he proposes to take any steps to advise the public as to what foods can best be stored in the national interests;
(2)whether he is aware that since 2nd February there has been an appreciable increase in the quantity of tinned foodstuffs sold to consumers in this country; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the desirability of making some statement advising consumers to buy as far as possible canned foods of British production?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have been asked to reply. On 2nd February my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed the House that the Government saw no objection to the accumulation by householders of modest additions to their normal reserves of foodstuffs. A list of suitable foods and instructions as to the best methods of storage, was subsequently prepared by the Food (Defence Plans) Department. Particulars have appeared in the Press and will be forwarded to anyone making application to the Department. In reply to my hon. Friend's suggestion, I should welcome it if home food manufacturers benefited from this movement.

Mr. T. Williams: Are the Government themselves or the right hon. Gentleman's Department taking steps to store food in quantity?

Mr. Morrison: The Department is taking steps to store certain quantities of essential foodstuffs.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hop. Gentleman advise the unemployed how they can get this additional store with the money they are getting now?

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman's future food policy be intimated to the President of the Board of Trade before any future restrictions on the growers of bacon, beef, mutton, lamb, and so on take place?

Mr. Morrison: All these aspects of Government policy are co-ordinated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (BREN MACHINE GUN).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Bren light

machine-gun is now being manufactured at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, in sufficient numbers to meet with Army requirements; and whether this gun is now being constructed exclusively at Government factories?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir, and the output is being enlarged. In addition, capacity is being created in Canada, and I am glad to learn that Australia, South Africa, and India also contemplate setting up factories for the manufacture of these weapons.

Mr. Days: Does that also apply to the component parts of the guns?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: These are mainly sub-contracted.

Mr. Bellenger: Are these Bren machine guns still being manufactured in this country under licence of a foreign patentee, of a country which is now incorporated in the German Reich?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: These are our own guns, and we have complete rights. If the hon. Gentleman wishes any details about them, I will let him have them.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Were not these rights Czecho-Slovakian rights, and, therefore, have we not the absolute right of manufacture without patentee rights?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think that is the position, but I could not answer definitely without notice.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the issue of the Bren machine guns to the Regular Army is now up to war standard?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. All Regular infantry units, both at home and abroad, except in India and Burma, which are differently equipped, are complete to war scale.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland particulars of the number of members of the prison service that have been allowed to resign and/or reduced in rank during the five years ended to the last convenient date; and the reasons for these resignations and/or reductions in rank?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): During the five years 1934–38, three members of the Scottish Prison Service were allowed to resign in consequence of breaches of discipline, and one was reduced in rank.

Mr. Day: Can we be informed whether these officers were in temporary or permanent employment?

Mr. Colville: I should have to look into that.

DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he is aware that the site for a new prison to replace Duke Street Prison was acquired in March, 1937, but that as the building has not yet been begun several years must elapse before it is completed; and whether, in view of the undesirability of retaining Duke Street Prison for this length of time, he will immediately make other arrangements for the prisoners and demolish Duke Street Prison;
(2)whether he is aware that in 1937 the average daily number of male and female prisoners in Duke Street Prison was eight and 76 respectively; and, in view of the fact that there is accommodation in Perth Prison for 330 male and 167 female prisoners whereas the average daily number of prisoners was 53 and six, respectively, why the prisoners from Duke Street Prison are not immediately transferred to Perth and the Duke Street Prison demolished?

Mr. Colville: I have carefully considered the suggestion that, pending the erection of a new prison, the female prisoners detained in Duke Street Prison should be accommodated elsewhere. I regret, however, that this is not practicable. Apart from other considerations, the unoccupied accommodation at Perth Prison, to which the hon. Member refers, consists mainly of out-of-date cells, which are not habitable and of rooms for hospital and other purposes.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time he was removing this blot from the landscape in Glasgow? Is he aware that I have put this question for 10 years to every Secretary of State for Scotland, that the first reply was that there was no land, that then they got the land, that then the

exhibition came along and they could not get the tradesmen to do the job, and that now they have got the land and the exhibition is away, and still they are not doing anything, but that they have agreed to it?

Mr. Colville: I answered the hon. Member rather more fully on 20th December last about the reason why, at present, we were postponing building.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (LAND SETTLEMENT).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of men who have been found employment in the experimental land cultivation schemes initiated by the Commissioner for the Special Areas; how many are married; what is the total of their families; what area of land now in cultivation has been brought into the schemes; what is the number of schemes, and in what part of the country have they been located; from what areas have the men and their families been drawn; what has been the total cost, including the purchase of land, administration, the removal of men, agricultural implements, housing, agricultural buildings, etc.; and is it possible at this stage of the experiment to say if it will be able to meet all its obligations?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the experimental schemes for providing the unemployed with whole-time occupation and a full livelihood by means of land settlement. In reply, I would refer him to Part VIII and Appendix XV of the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas (England and Wales) for the year ending 30th September, 1938, Cmd.5896. These experimental schemes are provided solely for married men with families. Apart from the seven rural tenants, who had been established on certain estates for demonstration purposes and 17 out of the 22 permanent employés of the Co-operative Farms, organised by the Welsh Land Settlement Society, the whole of the families recruited for settlement in connection with these schemes had been formerly resident in the Special Areas. Up to 30th September, 1938, the estimated expenditure on whole-time land settlement, excluding the cost of allowances from the Unemployment Assistance


Board during training was£1,825,000. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend will note from the Commissioner's report that the experiment is the subject of inquiry by an independent committee under the chairmanship of Sir William Dampier, whose report is expected at an early date.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can my right hon. Friend say how the expenditure to which he has referred is apportioned over the number of areas put under cultivation?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will refer to the report, where he will find a large number of figures, and if he then desires to know anything further, I shall be glad to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement on the manner in which collaboration between the League of Nations and the International Labour Office is proceeding in the matter of international migration; and whether, in view of the movements of population from Central Europe to-day, he will urge the need for speeding up such work?

Mr. E. Brown: I have been in communication with the Director of the International Labour Office on this matter. I have received from him a statement as to the present position, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

In accordance with the decision of the Governing Body at its 83rd Session in April, 1938, the report of the Technical Conference of Experts on Migration for Settlement was communicated to Governments and to the Secretary General of the League. The report was examined by the Economic Committee of the League at its 48th Session in July, 1938, and that Committee, in its report to the Council, considered that a permanent international committee of the kind suggested" might be useful and might lead to practical results if there is such a degree of organisation among the countries concerned as will enable them to co-operate fully in the manner contemplated." The report was also submitted to the 1938 Assembly,

which, after referring to the above mentioned resolution of the Economic Committee and to the fact that the International Labour Organisation had taken steps to discover which States would be prepared to co-operate in the work of the proposed committee, expressed the hope "that the Governments' replies will be of a nature to permit the establishment of such a body." The replies of the Governments have come in very slowly, but a number of affirmative replies have now been received, and it is hoped that the Office will be able to submit a report to the Governing Body on the subject at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what staff conversations have been arranged or are contemplated with countries with which military obligations have been undertaken?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government will maintain all necessary contacts, in military as in other matters, with the countries in question.

Mr. Mander: Is it not vital that such conversations should take place with Poland, Rumania, and Greece, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that they are actually taking place?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must be satisfied with the assurance that I have just given him.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is the intention to provide the whole House with an early opportunity of expressing their gratification at the initiative taken by President Roosevelt?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister why a D notice was issued to the Press at 7.50 p.m. on 10th April requesting them to refrain from publishing the fact that the coastal and anti-aircraft defences in Malta were being manned, in view of the fact that the information had already been issued to the Press throughout the world from Malta, and had appeared in the evening papers in London?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have been asked to reply. It is customary, for obvious reasons, to ask the Press not to publish


details of our precautionary measures. In this case, as soon as it became apparent that the information, derived from another source, had been published, the request was withdrawn in fairness to the Press as a whole.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact, which is well known, that the information had been given out directly from Malta to the whole world, why was any attempt made to prevent the British public alone from having this information?

Sir William Davison: Is there any reason at all why the Press should publish particulars of the movements of our ships and troops or of our general preparations?

Sir E. Findlay: Why should not the Government ask the Press not to publish such information? It is a perfectly reasonable request.

Mr. Mander: The question is why, in view of the fact that the information had been given out direct from Malta to the whole world, an attempt was made to prevent the British Press alone from publishing it?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I answered that question. As soon as it was known that the information, coming from another source, had been published, instructions were given that the request not to publish the information should be withdrawn.

Sir W. Davison: Why should all the movements of our troops and ships be published in the Press?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that any modification in the status of Danzig will be brought before the Council of the League of Nations for approval and that existing Polish rights in Danzig are covered by the British guarantee recently given by him?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Council of the League of Nations would, of course, have to consider any modification in the status of Danzig in view of the League's special connection with the Free City. The Prime Minister's recent statements in this House will, I trust, have put beyond doubt the nature of the undertakings given to the Polish Government by His Majesty's Government

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give a specific answer to the latter part of the question as to whether existing Polish rights in Danzig come within the terms of the guarantee?

Mr. Butler: I cannot add anything to the specific statement made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mander: Is it not of vital importance that the whole world should know whether the existing rights are covered or not? Is it the case that the Government will not say anything?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the recent negotiations with other Governments with a view to organising a combination of Governments to resist unprovoked aggression?

72 and 73. Major Milner: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can now indicate the precise extent of the existing arrangements between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain for mutual defence against aggression;
(2) whether he is aware of the widespread desire for the fullest measure of co-operation between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for mutual defence; and whether he can give an assurance that the Government have that desire and are taking every step to implement it without reservation?

The Prime Minister: I would ask hon. Members to be good enough to await the statement on the general situation which I shall be making in reply to the Leader of the Opposition at the end of Questions.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what reports have now been received from His Majesty's Minister in Albania relating to recent events in that country?

Mr. Butler: I have received a number of telegrams from His Majesty's Minister at Durazzo, to whose work under very great difficulties I should like to pay a tribute. These reports do not appreciably add to what has been made public.

Mr. Henderson: Has any explanation been given of why no reports were received for at least a week after the events took place?

Mr. Butler: Certain reports were received, but certain others were not, and


that was due to the difficulty of communication between Durazzo and this country at that time.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Prime Minister what engagements His Majesty's Government have entered into to assist Holland, Switzerland, or Denmark in the event of any of these countries becoming the victim of aggression?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have entered into no specific engagements with the three countries named, but it is unnecessary for me to insist upon the interest which His Majesty's Government have in the preservation of their independence.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the international situation?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have continued their close consultation with other interested Governments, including the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the course of the Debate on 13th April. I should, however, like to take this opportunity to inform the House of the great satisfaction with which His Majesty's Government have welcomed the recent initiative of the President of the United States of America.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to receiving evidence from branches of the British Legion and other ex-service men's organisations, he will now move to appoint a select committee to investigate the position of disabled ex-service men and the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, with particular reference to War pensions and applications for War service pensions, giving them the usual powers to send for persons, papers, and records?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would remind the hon. Member that I received a year ago representations from the British Legion as the result of a special inquiry made by them. I replied very fully to the Legion on all the points raised by them, and intimated that I saw no case

for the appointment by the Government of a committee of inquiry. Both the Legion's representations and my reply were published in a White Paper issued in May last, and subsequently debated in the House on 3rd June. Nothing that has occurred since has led me to revise my earlier view.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to a Ministry of Supply?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave on 5th April to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Salford (Major Stourton), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. White: Having regard to the growing concern about this question, does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a stetement in the near future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think it is possible that I may be able to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce any new measures designed to increase our ability to discharge our recently extended military commitments, and, in particular, whether His Majesty's Government have reconsidered the desirability of compiling a complete and compulsory national register?

The Prime Minister: In addition to a number of detailed measures which cannot be set out in reply to a Parliamentary question, steps are being taken both to accelerate and to widen the basis of production, with a view to providing increased war potential, bearing in mind the increasing demands upon our resources which it is prudent to anticipate in view of recent developments. With regard to the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 3rd April to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Salford (Major Stourton).

Mr. H. G, Williams: May I ask whether anybody has yet told my right hon. Friend what a national register means?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to announce any revision in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations, Cmd. 5926?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I cannot at present add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 3rd April, beyond saying that the many details involved are being discussed by the Departments concerned and every effort is being made to enable decisions to be announced at an early date.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that every day thousands of people are being prevented from offering their services as Territorials although they are engaged in occupations which are by no means vital, and, in view of the importance of getting Territorial recruits, will my right hon. Friend deal with this matter with the utmost despatch?

Sir J. Anderson: I realise the urgency, but my hon. Friend must remember that a mass of detail has to be examined and several Departments are involved. There will be no avoidable delay.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it necessary to wait until that detail has been examined? Would it not be possible to strike off the list of reserved occupations a few quite obviously absurd cases which ought never to have been included?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it would affect large numbers. Certain changes have already been made and are effective.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Postmaster-General why he refused to allow an appeal by the mayor of Brighton for National Service volunteers to be broadcast through the local relay station, although the relay services were willing to give facilities, and although he intends to use these services for national purposes in an emergency?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Relay exchanges are established for the sole purpose of relaying to their subscribers programmes broadcast by recognised broadcasting stations. They are

prohibited by their licences from transmitting local messages; and except during the September crisis all requests for an exception to be made to this rule have hitherto been refused. As I recently announced, however, it has been decided to make arrangements for the use of the relay exchanges for special local announcements in time of emergency. In view of various requests which I have received, I am in consultation with the responsible Departments as to the desirability of authorising the distribution in present circumstances of certain special announcements by means of the relay exchanges.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE (NOTE ISSUE).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the note issue in circulation at the peak period for the years 1923, 1929, 1934, 1937, and 1938?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following are the figures as published in the Bank of England's Weekly Return and (so far as concerns 1923) in the Treasury statements of the Currency Note Issue:


1923:

£
s.
d.


26th December
…
403,333,732
10
0


1929:






25th December
…
379,573,841
0
0


1934:






26th December
…
405,163,800
0
0


1937:






22nd December
…
509,315,646
0
0


1938:






5th October
…
505,784,303
0
0


[The figures for 1923 include Bank Notes, Treasury Notes and Certificates.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to identify the assets covered by the Czecho-Slovakia (Restrictions on Banking Accounts, etc.), Act, 1939, and to investigate claims?

Sir J. Simon: The Bank of England, on behalf of the Treasury, are obtaining particulars as to the assets and claims referred to. The information obtained up


to the present is not sufficiently complete for any statement of the amounts involved to be made.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: Baron von Neurath, Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia, arrived in Prague on 5th April, but he has since returned to Berlin. A Hungarian-Slovak Commission met in Budapest at the end of March for the purpose of delimiting the new frontier between Hungary and Slovakia arising out of the Hungarian occupation of Ruthenia, and I understand that agreement was reached early in April regarding the delimitation of this frontier.

Mr. Bellengers: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the military occupation of this country has been decreased consequent upon the appointment of this Reich protector?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question in order to give a detailed answer, but, as the hon. Member will be aware, German troops are occupying the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (BLACKLISTED SCHOOLS).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what progress has been made up to date in replacing schools blacklisted and condemned by the Board's survey; what number have been dealt with; and what number are still waiting to be replaced?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Six hundred and seventy-nine schools were originally placed in Class A of the Black List, that is, schools reported as unsuitable for continued recognition and incapable of improvement. Of these, 562 have been dealt with by closure, replacement or reconstruction, and of the 117 still on the list, plans for dealing with 26 have been approved by the Board.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made by local authorities in closing blacklisted schools?

Mr. Lindsay: I shall not be satisfied until the remaining 90 or so are removed. We are urging local authorities to proceed as rapidly as possible. Some of these schools are intimately bound up with reorganisation schemes which we are also pressing.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Touche: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that delay is being caused in the provision of air-raid shelters in commercial buildings by reason of the fact that under Section 15 of the Civil Defence Bill owners of commercial buildings doing such work before the passing of the Act will not have the right to charge tenants with their share of the expenses; and whether he will consider making the Bill retrospective in this respect?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware of any delay in the provision of air-raid shelters in commercial buildings which could be attributed to the cause suggested. If, however, my hon. Friend will be so good as to send me any information he may have bearing on the matter I will consider what action can appropriately be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS).

Sir A. Southby: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now announce the names of the regional commissioners and deputy regional commissioners to be appointed in connection with the Civil Defence regional organisation?

Sir J. Anderson: The King has been pleased to approve, on the recommendation of the Home Secretary and of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the nomination of the following persons for appointment in case of need as regional commissioners and deputy regional commissioners under the Civil Defence scheme. The nominations will be for a period of three years from 1st April, 1939.

Northern Region.

Regional Commissioner.

Sir Arthur Lambert, M.C., with whom the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) will be associated in a consultative capacity.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Nomination will be deferred until the occurrence of an emergency.

North Eastern Region.

Regional Commissioner.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Harlech, G.C.M.G.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Sir Charles McGrath.

North Western Region.

Regional Commissioner.

Sir Warren Fisher, G.C.B., G.C.V.O.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Mr. J. R. Hobhouse, M.C.

North Midland Region.

Regional Commissioner.

Lord Trent.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Mr. H. A. S. Wortley.

Midland Region.

Regional Commissioner.

The Earl of Dudley, M.C.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Mr. S. J. Grey.

Eastern Region.

Regional Commissioner.

Sir Will Spens, C.B.E.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Lord Eltisley, K.B.E.

Southern Region,

Regional Commissioner.

Mr. Harold Butler, C.B.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Mr. W. M. Goodenough.

South Eastern Region.

Regional Commissioner.

The Rt. Hon. Sir Auckland Geddes, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Viscount Knollys, M.B.E.

South Western Region.

Regional Commissioner.

General Sir Hugh Elles, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., D.S.O.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Mr. Geoffrey Peto, C.B.E.

London Region.

Senior Regional Commissioner.

The appointment will be deferred until the occurrence of an emergency.

Regional Commissioners.

Sir Ernest Gowers, K.C.B., K.B.E. Admiral Sir Edward Evans, K.C.B., D.S.O.

Welsh Region.

Regional Commissioner.

Lord Portal, D.S.O., M.V.O.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

Captain Geoffrey Crawshay.

Scottish Region.

Regional Commissioner.

The selection will be deferred until the occurrence of an emergency, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Division of Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) and my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, have agreed to collaborate in planning the necessary organisation in Scotland.

Deputy Regional Commissioner.

The Earl of Airlie, G.C.V.O., M.C.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why so many members of another place have been appointed to these positions?

Sir J. Anderson: They were not selected for that reason.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why they were selected? What were their special qualifications?

Sir J. Anderson: All the gentlemen I have named were selected after careful review of their qualifications and experience.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Will the commissioners be paid?

Sir J. Anderson: In peace time no question of payment will arise. In the event of war provision will be made for payment except in those cases in which the gentlemen concerned may prefer to serve without pay.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Has the scale of payments been laid down?

Sir J. Anderson: The maxima have been authorised.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand that the clerk to the largest county council in Britain is expected to have enough spare time to fulfil these onerous duties?

Sir J. Anderson: In time of war he would be fully engaged, and it was thought that he would be best engaged in this occupation.

Mr, Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Ernest Gowers, who is Chairman of the Coal Commission, will be relieved of his present duties?

Sir J. Anderson: In time of war, certainly.

Mr. Shinwell: Will he have any duties before war begins?

Sir J. Anderson: No executive responsibilities. All commissioners will be expected to acquaint themselves with the characteristics of their regions, and to do whatever they can to fit themselves for the responsibilities which, in the event of war, they will be called upon to discharge.

Sir A. Sinclair: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that the scales of salary have been authorised, can he say what those scales are?

Sir J. Anderson: I think I could say at the moment, but I should prefer to have notice of the question in order that there should be no misunderstanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport the number of consumers of electricity in this country at the latest date for which the figures are available; and what increase this represents over the previous five years?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): The official returns of the Electricity Commissioners show that at the end of the year 1937–38 there were 9,358,000 consumers, as compared with 5,336,000 at the end of the year 1932–33, representing an increase in the five years of over 4,000,000 consumers or approximately 75 per cent.

Mr. Ridley: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this expansion has occurred mainly under private ownership, which the hon. Member loves, or under public ownership, which he so ferociously attacks whenever he gets the opportunity?

Captain Hudson: I think it is a very satisfactory increase.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is the proportion of increase in the rural areas as high as 75 per cent.?

Captain Hudson: I must ask the hon. Member to put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI ORGANISATIONS AND PROPAGANDA, ENGLAND.

Mr. Thome: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

he has received from the Metropolitan Police any information in connection with the activities of the Nazi organisation at the Brown House, Wilton Road, Victoria; whether these German subjects have now transferred to the former Austrian Legation in Belgrave Square; how many cells there are operating in various parts of London; can he give any information about the German Labour Front cells operating in London; what information he has about the Nazi dealers and traders who meet in the West Central district; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The suggestion in the first part of the question appears to be due to the fact that a German national who has business premises in Wilton Road is one of the officials of the Nazi organisation in this country, but, so far as I am aware, these premises have not been used for the purpose of any Nazi activities. As regards the remainder of the question, it would not, in my view, be in the public interest to disclose all the information in my possession, but, as I stated in reply to recent questions, constant and careful attention is given to the activities in this country of these associations, and recently steps have been taken to terminate the stay here of three of the persons connected with these organisations

Mr. Thorne: Has the Home Secretary received a memorandum, printed in German, by a person by the name of Joanna Wolff? Does he know of him? Does he know where he resides? If not, he resides at 28, Cleveland Terrace. May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman intends doing in regard to this pernicious organisation and the pernicious methods of propaganda which it is carrying on?

Sir S. Hoare: The answer to the hon. Member is that we do know this person. The particular individual to whom he refers is a lady. We know all about her activities and the organisation, and we are watching them very carefully.

Mr. Thorne: If the name is that of a lady it is all the worse. I will hand over to the right hon. Gentleman this memorandum printed in German.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will keep a careful watch upon what goes on at the Brown House?

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I have said so.

Mr. Logan: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the Nazi propaganda carried on by Herr Ernst Lahrmann in Lancashire, and the method of approaching Germans resident in England; that spaces are left on enrolment forms to note refusals to join the Nazi Labour Front; and what action does he intend to take to suppress this propaganda?

Sir S. Hoare: I have certain information about this case and I am making some further inquiries. Pending the completion of these inquiries, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is public property that there are four sub-centres of activity and propaganda in this land, and that intimidation of even those Germans who have been living here for a long time is very prevalent?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I am aware of those facts, probably in greater detail than the hon. Member, and I am watching the matter very carefully.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there are Members of this House associated with these Nazis in their propaganda?

Hon. Members: Name.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Paling: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the situation in China?

Mr. Butler: Reports have been received of fighting at Kaifeng, the capital of Honan province, but it is not yet possible to vouch for their accuracy. Otherwise there have been no important changes since the House rose for Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minisister whether he has received any intimation from the Italian Government as to the approximate date when it is proposed to remove the Italian Army units from Spain?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome was informed on 9th April by Count Ciano that the Italian troops would be withdrawn as soon as the victory parade had taken place at Madrid.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any guarantee that they will not be withdrawn and then returned as was the case in Libya?

Mr. Butler: We have just been assured that they will be withdrawn after the parade takes place.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the date fixed for the parade?

Mr. Butler: I have seen reports that the parade is to be on 15th May.

Sir A. Sinclair: Do the Government acquiesce in this statement by the Italians that they are not going to withdraw the troops until 15th May? Is that going to be regarded as a fulfilment of the undertaking given in the Anglo-Italian Agreement that the Italian troops were to be withdrawn forthwith the moment the civil war was over in Spain?

Mr. Butler: I was asked whether we had received any information from the Italian Government and I have given the House the information which we have had from them.

Mr. Mander: Do the Government realise now the criminal folly of this Spanish policy?

Mr. Sandys: asked the Prime Minister how many Italian and German troops are at present in Spain; whether any increases have been made recently; and whether he has any information regarding the construction of new aerodromes or fortifications near the Pyrenees frontier or in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar?

Mr. Butler: As regards the first and second parts of the question, the position is still as stated in the reply given on 5th April to the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). This also applies to Germans serving in Spain. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have no confirmation of the construction of such aerodromes or fortifications.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have there been any recent increases in the number of Germans and Italians in Spain?

Mr. Butler: Not according to our information.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend cause special inquiry to be made into this very important question of the fortifications of Gibraltar?

Mr. Sandys: Are we to understand from the reply of my right hon. Friend that he has received reports to this effect but that they are not fully confirmed?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Special inquiries were made in relation to the last part of the question on the Paper, and I have given the House the latest information in our possession.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will His Majesty's Government call for reports from the 56 consular officers that we have in different parts of Spain as to whether there have been new arrivals or not?

Mr. Butler: The 56 consular officers are so efficient that they send us reports without being asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health the total number of back-to-back houses in the city of Birmingham in 1931 and 1938; the total number owned by the city corporation and private owners, respectively; and how many in each category have been brought into slum-clearance orders?

ENGLAND AND WALES.


Occupied Population (aged 14 years and upwards) at1911 and 1931 Censuses.


—
Persons.
Males.
Females.


1911
16,137,982
11,356,524
4,781,458


1931
18,853,376
13,247,333
5,606,043


Enumerated as out of work but included in 1931 figures.
2,166,806
1,683,742
483,064


Percentage increase of 1931 over 1911
17
17
17

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution from Leigh Town Council asking that the expenditure on public assistance at present borne by local authorities should be met by the National Exchequer; and what reply is being given to it?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): In 1931 there were in Birmingham some 40,000 back-to-back houses, all but 281 in private ownership. By 1938 these had been reduced to 33,500 of which 264 were owned by the corporation. 8,588 of those in private ownership and 155 of the corporation's back-to-back houses have so far been included in clearance areas.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the people who own these houses are to have air-raid shelters?

Mr. Elliot: That is a question which relates to another Department.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is there not a Conservative Council in Birmingham?

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPIED POPULATION.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish an estimate of the present number of occupied persons in England and Wales; and what increase this represents as compared with the number at the census of 1911?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The latest available figures of the occupied population are those of the 1931 Census. These figures and their comparative increase over the corresponding figures for 1911 are as follow:

Mr. Elliot: I have received the resolution, and in reply I have referred the town council to the statement made on behalf of the Government by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 1st February last, in the course of the Debate on the matter in this House.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the items is the relief given to old age pensioners? Cannot the Government think about accepting that responsibility or about increasing the present amount so that these people will not have to go for public assistance?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Palestine?

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make with reference to the situation in Palestine, and the future policy of the Government concerning the national home for the Jews, arising out of the Balfour Declaration?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Further progress has been made during the past month towards the restoration of order in Palestine. As a result of firm and energetic action by the troops and police, the large armed bands have now been broken up. On 27th March, one of the chief gang leaders was killed by the troops, and on 12th April another leader, who had taken refuge across the Syrian border, surrendered to the French authorities. During this period considerable quantities of arms, ammunition and explosives have been seized or surrendered. Isolated acts of terrorism and sabotage continue. I am not yet in a position to make a statement with regard to future policy.

Mr. T. Williams: As the rebellion appears to be drawing to a close, and in view of the international situation, might it not be advisable for His Majesty's Government to defer for six months or 12 months any further step in the Palestine policy?

Mr. MacDonald: In answer to the first part of that question I should not like to add anything to the description of the situation given in my original answer. I think that that gave sufficient indication of the slackening of the pace, at any rate, of the rebellion. With regard to the second part, that is one of the matters which His Majesty's Government are bearing in mind.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the negotiations that have been going on recently in Cairo on the subject of Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: There have been no negotiations going on, but that is another question. I understand that a question has been put down for to-morrow, and I will answer it then.

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government still adhere firmly to the Balfour Declaration?

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any interim report from the Commission investigating the possibility of large-scale settlement of refugees in British Guiana?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. The possibility of an interim report has been suggested to the Commission, but in the meantime I have received information that its members are meeting in New York this week to consider the drafting of what, I understand, will be a final report.

Sir Stanley Reed: In any question of the closer settlement of British Guiana will my right hon. Friend give first place to the over-populated islands of the West Indies?

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consideration has recently been given to the possibility of close settlement of refugees on the higher-lying land of British Honduras; and whether he can make any stetement as to facilities being given for such settlement?

Mr. MacDonald: I have had this matter in mind, but it is one which has to be considered in relation to other interests besides those raised in the hon. Member's question. There is a serious over-population problem in certain West Indian Colonies, and it is possible that a partial solution to this might be afforded by emigration to British Honduras. Pending the Report of the West India Royal Commission, I do not feel in a position to say whether the possibility of close settlement of European refugees in the Colony could be taken into serious consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 112.

Division No. 75.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Goldie, N. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Granville, E. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Patrick, C. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peat, C. U.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Assheton, R.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Pilkington, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hannah, I. C.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Purbrick, R.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harbord, A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Bernays, R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boulton, W. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepworth, J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Higgs, W. F.
Remer, J. R.


Bull, B. B
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holdsworth, H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burghley, Lord
Holmes, J. S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hopkinson, A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hulbert, N. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Salter, Sir j. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Channon, H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sandys, E. D.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Christie, J. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leighton, Major B, E. P.
Snadden, W. McN.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Levy, T.
Somerset, T.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lewis, O.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Liddall, W. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lipson, D. L.
Spens, W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Craven-Ellis, W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crowder, J. F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Culverwell, C. T.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Denville, Alfred
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Duggan, H. J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Findlay, Sir E.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff. E.)
Wise, A. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Munro, P.
Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-


Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Colonel Kerr.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pearson A


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Agnes
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Ballenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A
Hopkin, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Simpson, F, B.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Cthns)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J, R
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cooks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp' ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, H.)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McGovern, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Evan, D. O. (Cardigan)
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Frankel, D.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Wilkinson, Euan


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Owen, Major G.



Griffith, F. Kingslay (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," [Captain Margesson], put, and agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (ADJOURNMENT).

The following Paper, presented by His Majesty's Command during the Adjournment, was delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Adjournment, pursuant to Standing Order No. 93:

WAR RISKS (CARGOES REINSURANCE).

Copy of Provisional Scheme for the Reinsurance of the Marine Insurance Market in so far as concerns King's Enemy Risks on Cargoes destined for discharge in or shipped from the United Kingdom.

Ordered, That the said Paper do lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Baxter, Major Guest, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Annesley Somerville, and Mr. York; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Eckersley, Mr. Peat, Mr. Porritt, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Rowlands.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill): Mr. Hamilton Kerr; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Dodd.

STANDING COMMITTEE D

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Cluse, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Hayday, and Mr. T. Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. S. O. Davies, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Richards, Mr. Riley, and Mr. Westwood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1939.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"—[Captain Margesson.]

NURSING SERVICES.

3.58 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, taking note of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Nursing Services, recognises the inadequate supply of nurses to meet the increasing demand for their services and the urgent need of reform in their training, registration, and conditions of service both for institutional and domiciliary nursing.
Nursing is no longer merely a personal service; it serves a national need. It is of national importance; it serves, incidentally, every Government Department in one form or another; and, above all, from the nurses' training schools nurses go out into every part of the world and serve the Empire. I think, therefore, that it is proper to regard it as coming within the purview of the Civil Estimates. I should like to deal with this matter from the nurses' point of view. There is a rising storm of complaints, which have been freely circulated in the Press, and which show instances, all too frequent if not general, of nurses being over-worked and under-paid, of excessive discipline and restrictions and inferior accommodation, while at the end of their life's service it may happen that nurses' pensions are not interchangeable, and they may not be able to get the pensions to which they started to contribute.
From the public point of view the matter is of national importance. Let me refer first to the shortage. In many cases there is a deficiency of nurses, especially in the nursing homes; and there is the rising competition of business jobs which account very largely for the shortage. In 1932 we had the very well informed report of the "Lancet" commission, which resulted in many of the improvements which have taken place since. Last year we had the report of the Alness Committee in Scotland, and in January of this year we

had an interim report from the Athlone Committee for England and Wales. The shortage of nurses, obviously, depends on the relationship between supply and demand. Let us consider the question of the supply of nurses throughout the country. Roughly speaking, the number on the General Nursing Register is 74,000; but there are supplementary parts of the Register containing the names of those who are registered only for the purpose of fever cases, sick children and mental defectives, and male nurses, and, adding these, we get a total of 90,000 on the Register, of whom 54,000 are qualified by examination.
It is interesting to those who are only beginning to study the subject—that applies to most people—to note that the entries into the profession have been increasing very definitely of late years. During the past 12 years the number entering for the preliminary examination for the Register has increased from less than 6,000 to nearly 10,000, an increase of nearly 50 per cent.; and the numbers entering for the final examination have increased by something like 100 per cent. From 25 to 35 per cent. of the probationers have fallen out in the first year. Therefore the recruitment at the present rate requires not only the 9,000 who enter for the final examination, but the 3,000 who have dropped out on the way. At the present rate we require 12,000 entrants into the profession yearly for training. But, even so, at the present time there is a shortage. The London County Council, with its very able and efficient and strong organisation, reports that in December, 1937, in their general hospitals in an establishment of nearly 7,000 nurses they had 611 vacancies for staff, first grade; that is vacancies for nearly 10 per cent. They had to fill up half that number with 300 first-year probationers. Take a council like the Surrey County Council. There we find that a quarter of their authorised posts for female nurses were unfilled. Most hospitals and institutions for nursing the sick report a similar relative difficulty in obtaining the numbers required, even under the present standard.
One of the obvious suggestions for dealing with the problem has been the use of foreign women nurses from abroad. The addition of foreigners of either sex has to be limited, I fear, by certain other considerations, but the Home Office have


not been averse to considering whether they can stretch a point in favour of those who can do useful service in the nursing world, and although in 1935 the number so admitted was 72 only, it had trebled in 1937 to 215. It is not a large number and I do not know how far it can be increased, but it is obvious, from the patient's point of view as well as from the point of view of the volunteers, that it is not easy to get women who could give suitable service to the patients. Wastage always has to be remembered in such an arduous service. A probationer perhaps finds the work unsuitable, or individuals are found by the authorities to be ill-adapted for the work. Many are weeded out by examinations and many by the happier result of marriage.
If that is the position as regards the supply of nurses, let it be remembered that there is not only the question of supply, but that the increased demand occasions the difficulty at the present time. The increased demand arises from various factors. There are six factors that have to be considered. The first is that in voluntary hospitals the number of beds has increased by no less than 1,500 a year in recent years, and that they require the services of 500 extra nurses a year. That is a very satisfactory measure of increase. The second increased demand has come from the passing of the Local Government Act, 1929, and the transfer of the Poor Law to the local authorities, the result having been that the Poor Law institutions have been turned by degrees into very well run, and in some cases extremely well run and equipped municipal hospitals, with a corresponding increase of staff. For instance, the nursing staff of the Surrey County Council hospitals increased in the eight years from 1930 to 1938 from 369 to 700. Then there are the returns sent in reply to a questionnaire sent out by the Society of Medical Officers of Health to county and borough councils. As to the trained nurses and probationers serving in general hospitals, fever hospitals and tuberculosis hospitals, the returns received show an increase in the last 10 years from 9,150 to 13,900, or nearly 50 per cent.
The third factor in the increased demand comes from the growing public demand for hospital treatment in acute sickness- As a result of the housing

shortage, accompanied by the modern standard of very small rooms in new houses, accompanied also by various other conditions of the present day, there is a greater demand for hospital accommodation and therefore for nursing services. The fourth factor, as many of us know, is due to an increased demand for domiciliary nursing, whether under an authority or under the Queen's Institute of District Nursing or in private homes. When sickness comes into the home, especially long continued sickness, we all know the inestimable advantage of visits by the district nurse or by the local authority nurse, or the advantage of being able to employ a nurse on our own account. Therefore the shortage of nurses and the standard of nursing are matters of first importance.
I would like to make an appeal for a greater use as a matter of policy of domiciliary nursing. The hospitals all over the country have grown up as separate institutions. The patients come into them from outside unknown, and they go out from them to the outside to face the world alone. By a greater linking up of the system of domiciliary nursing with the hospitals, by an organic linking up, we would enable the nurses themselves to advise patients when to go into a hospital for treatment, and at the same time we would prevent them from going to the hospitals when they could be treated at home. That policy would enable the hospitals to discharge them earlier to their homes, with the knowledge that they would be under nursing care which could be trusted. There is a definite point of public policy which one may commend alike to the governing bodies of hospitals and of local authorities.
The fifth factor in the increased demand for nurses is the development of medical technique. There are the needs of X-ray and heat therapy. There is one hon. Member, a heart case, who has for some months been fortunate enough to obtain the services of a nurse every hour and every minute, day and night, and there are still in attendance on him three nurses day and night. I know of a case in St. Thomas's Hospital calling for the most delicate apparatus for dealing with blood poisoning. Heat therapy is required and instruments have to be adjusted constantly day and night according to the patient's requirements, and the constant attendance of two nurses is


called for. That is an instance showing the increased demand for nurses. There is a sixth factor. Greater efforts have been made by hospital authorities in recent years to reduce the hours of nurses. A reduction of the hours has meant an increased staff and therefore an increased demand. For instance the proposed 96-hour fortnight, apart from everything else, calls for a 20 to 30 per cent, increase in establishment. That is according to the report of the Departmental Committee.
To sum up, whereas the 9,000 entrants a year now sitting for the final Register examination require 12,000 entrants for training, the needs which I have outlined require 20,000 entrants a year. That is another 8,000 a year, apart from the future expansion of needs. Let us consider the sources of recruitment. Four main sources come to one's mind. The first is a suggestion that by lowering the age of admission you will entice a larger number of girls to come into the profession—girls who otherwise would be fixed up elsewhere. Before the War it was considered unwise, if not indelicate from the point of view of the patient, that a nurse should be given work in the wards until she was 21 or 23—the ages differed, but 21 was the minimum. Now such is the reduction made, that 18 is the age generally considered as a minimum for entering the wards, and in fever hospitals and children's hospitals many have reduced the age to 17 and even less. The Departmental Committee considered that the age of 19 was the minimum desirable, but that in present circumstances it might be reduced to 18, and even in exceptional cases, under special rules and regulations, to 17 years for fever hospitals and children's wards. Do not let us forget the harrowing experience that may come to a girl of very sympathetic disposition at the age of 17 or 18 when she goes into a children's ward and is face to face with the questions of life and death and human suffering.
The second source of recruits is the secondary schools. It is the ideal source in general for the higher standard of nursing at which we aim, but the total output of the State-aided and other secondary schools is something like 46,000 a year, of whom some 12,000 stay on to the age of 17. Therefore, we cannot possibly supply the 12,000 a year

now required, still less 20,000 a year. A large proportion of those girls are inclined to go elsewhere. The secondary schools may produce a larger source of supply when we improve conditions, but even then they will not be able to supply anything like the large number required. Then we come to the third source, which is the elementary shools. Now, under the Hadow scheme, with the senior schools, we have a large supply of girls leaving school up to the age of 15—something like 280,000 a year. They are classified into three grades. The highest grade is that which provides girls suitable for recruitment for the nursing service. The Departmental Committee, after hearing much evidence on the matter, recognised that the second grade may also supply girls of suitable experience and training to qualify, even if we leave out the third grade as being rather unsuitable.
But the question is, how to fill the gap between the age of 15, when the girls leave school, and that of 18 or 19 when they may enter the ward and how far are examinations and training a deterrent? I think everybody recognises the necessity of examinations and training, although they require modification from time to time. Let me recite the course of examination and training required. The course for fever nurses is two years, and for other nurses three years at a complete training school, or four years at an affiliated training school. The minimum age for the final examination is 20 in the case of fever nurses, and 21 in the case of other nurses. The examinations are a series of hurdles which they have to leap. The first hurdle is their acceptance at a recognised training school and a test examination, or the school certificate in lieu. To ensure the minimum standard two papers are set, one in English and general knowledge and another in arithmetic. The arithmetic is extremely necessary for those who have to read doctors' prescriptions and for other requirements of the nursing service. Some modification of the examination is suggested by the Departmental Committee. In most cases the test examination is found to be unnecessary, because the suitability or otherwise of the candidate on those particular matters will be found out in the course of the later training.
The second hurdle is the Preliminary State Examination. This is divided into two parts. The first part deals with


anatomy, physiology and hygiene. Courses are being arranged, and I hope will be arranged to an increasing extent, under the local authorities, so that girls can take them before the time at which they would start work in the hospitals. The pre-nursing course, I may say, is particularly important for filling the gap after the elementary school girl leaves school. She cannot devote herself to whole-time study in anatomy and hygiene as required, and the Departmental Committee proposed a greater use of technical institutes for evening classes, so that while the girl is earning her living in other ways she can study these subjects in her spare time. The second part of the preliminary examination is the material practice of nursing, which is given her by the sisters in the wards while she is doing her hospital work. Those responsible for administration must try to avoid giving the rather wearying instruction to tired nurses after a hard day's work. The third, and more important hurdle, is the final examination, of which there has been much criticism. The Departmental Committee are deferring their suggestions with regard to this examination The main criticism is that many women who are entirely suited to nursing, not merely because of their kindness of heart and devotion to duty but in respect of intelligence also, cannot pass an examination, so that the examinations in themselves are keeping out women who are quite capable of doing the work of nursing. My own wife, for instance, after going through the A.R.P. course and being, as I know, a very good nurse up to a point, is confident she cannot face the examination, and has come up to town to avoid it. I am not myself dealing with the question of assistant nurses. That will be referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend who is to second the Amendment.
I come to the question of conditions of service, which has aroused such intense interest in the community. In general, I may say that many statements that have been made in the Press and elsewhere are exaggerated or quite unjustified. Great improvements have taken place in the last few years in nurses' conditions, their food and their hours of duty, especially in some of the bigger hospitals. But in many of them conditions remain which require to be improved: first, in the interests of good nursing; second, in the individual interests of the nurses; and third, as a

means of dealing with the problem of recruiting. There is clear evidence that, together with the poor financial prospects, the long hours of work are the chief factor in that problem. The result is chronic tiredness, which is bad both for the health of the nurses and for the patients. The Departmental Committee say that the nurses are suffering under a strain which cannot be paralleled in any other profession. This affects all grades, from the matron down to the first-year probationer. Most hospitals are trying to reduce hours, but are handicapped by the shortage of recruits. So we have a vicious circle: until the hours are reduced there will not be enough recruits, and until there are more recruits it will be impossible to reduce hours. We have to break that vicious circle.
The present practice is for nurses to work something like 13 hours a day. Beginning at seven o'clock in the morning and working until eight o'clock in the evening is common; although it is also a common practice to allow two hours off in the afternoon and one hour off for meals, bringing the total on duty down to 10 hours. There is now a demand for a 96-hour fortnight. That would be a pretty heavy tax in itself, but it is the utmost improvement we can look for. That is exclusive of meals, but must include compulsory lectures, which are quite as hard work as the other work. How can this limitation be achieved? The nursing profession, almost without exception, is opposed to its imposition by Statute. The improvement must be gradual. It is quite true that the bigger hospitals and the local authorities can be expected to reduce their hours to that limit within the next few years, but, if so, they will do it at the expense of the smaller provincial hospitals, which are unable at present to make that limitation. In that case the big hospitals will attract the nurses, and we have to look after the smaller hospitals as well as the bigger ones in asking for our reforms.
It would be better than having a statutory limitation of hours to do it through the method of grants, and to say that grants from whatever source should be conditional on reasonable hours being worked by the nurses. Another way would be to relieve nurses of domestic work through the greater use of ward-maids and orderlies. Then there is the question of off-duty periods, which are as


essential to nurses as a shorter day's work, and proper notice of such off-duty periods should be given to them beforehand. With regard to annual holidays, the Departmental Committee report that the least holiday which should be considered is four weeks for all grades, of which two, and if possible three, weeks should be consecutive. I am not going to give instances, but there are many which I could give, of nurses' conditions, which would be very harrowing.
I come to the second matter which is of immense importance—that is, salaries and pensions. However philanthropic a young woman may be in choosing her profession, her parents are often driven, naturally enough, to consider the prospects if the girl does not do so herself. There is the question of competition, especially when it is the case of parents of girls from elementary, schools, in respect of better-paid openings in private life, the expansion of women's employment in education, industry and the professions, and not the least in my own profession of medicine, which has drawn off a certain number of girls who, I believe, in the end, would have been better suited for the nursing profession than the medical profession. Therefore, in view of this competition, it is very necessary to consider financial prospects. It is because it is so necessary to dangle financial prospects before the recruits that we have the system of proportionately higher salaries being paid to the younger nurses. It is shown in the report that many probationers up to the age of 23 at present receive a salary as high as that of a certificated teacher. But nurses as a class especially considering the responsibility of their work, are badly underpaid, notwithstanding board and lodging and emoluments. Nursing is the only profession in which the principle of the maximum salary being more important than the minimum is ignored. The salaries of nurses require revision, especially in the higher grades. Statistics in regard to this matter are being prepared for the final report of the Departmental Committee, so that we need not go into them in a general review this afternoon. The position of salaries and pensions is unsatisfactory. The important matter of interchangeable pensions I leave to my Seconder.
It must be remembered that local authorities and voluntary hospitals are competing at present for recruits, and therefore there is need for the question of recruitment to be considered on a national basis. It is proposed that there should be a central system of recruitment, and anything in that direction would be of advantage. The position is very analogous in many ways to that of the teaching profession 20 years ago. Many of us will remember the problem that was then before this House and outside. How was that met? It was met by the establishment of the Burnham Committees, and it is suggested that a similar organisation should be provided to deal with the question of the salaries of nurses. It is necessary to begin by holding conferences between employers and employed, and I ask the Minister of Health to give us an assurance that he will take the initiative in order that conferences may be held with a view to the establishment of some such committee or organisation.
The third disadvantage that must be remedied is that of the accommodation provided for nurses. Accommodation has been much improved in recent years at very great expense, but still it is often far short of the minimum requirement, which is, a bedroom for each nurse, properly heated and lighted, bathroom and w.c. for every six nurses, good dining-room for the serving of hot meals, a recreation room, and at least one room for the entertainment of friends; also in training schools, the provision of proper class and study rooms. There are many instances, I am glad to say, of good hostels where nurses can secure satisfactory living accommodation out of the hospital atmosphere itself. Another suggestion that requires a great deal of forethought is that of allowing nurses to live out, which is very essential in some cases, particularly perhaps with regard to a widowed mother able to look after her daughter at home, thus enabling the daughter to attend to her work in hospital quite well. Some of the senior nurses, similarly, might be allowed to live in private life away from the hospital atmosphere. Obviously, very careful regulations would have to be made in order that the efficiency of the work in hospital should not suffer. The fourth disadvantage relates to the question of discipline and restrictions necessary for the efficiency of the hos-


pitals, but which may be unreasonable, and, in many cases, are unreasonable. They have a deplorable effect upon recruiting, especially when magnified, as is often the case. The report sums up the position very well that where sense of freedom is retained, loyalty can be relied on more truly than under a system of irritating restraints. The new rules of the London County Council hospitals are an example of enlightened reform, and the establishment of nurses' councils corresponding to Whitley Councils, representing the staff on one side and the governors or local authority on the other, is recommended in every hospital.
There are other points with which I have not time to deal to-day. There is the question of pensions, the health of nurses, their food, recreation, social life, all of which are important, and comprehensive statements and detailed working-out of suggestions have been left to be dealt with by the Departmental Committee in their final report. Therefore, we can deal only with generalities at the present time. Enough has been said, however, to show the urgent need for improved conditions and increased recruitment. Fully qualified and efficient nurses are too precious to be wasted in doing certain duties which, under proper supervision, can be done by others, and I repeat that the essential need is to have a properly controlled, qualified and ordered system of assistant nurses, which, if not controlled and limited, will be liable to abuses. There is the question of the monopoly of title, uniform practice, as in the case of midwives under the Midwives Acts, and of dentists, but not of doctors. The question of monopoly of practice has to be considered. It has not yet been reported upon by the Departmental Committee.
These requirements, if the House agrees, as I hope it will, will necessitate the expenditure of money, but we cannot to-day deal with the question of how the money is to be found. The question of education and block grants to local authorities, and increased voluntary efforts, will have to be considered later on, but I ask the Members of the House to show, by accepting this Resolution, their recognition of these needs. I am sure that we all recognise the great debt of the country and of the nursing profession to the General Nursing

Council that has, with admirable statesmanship, steered the nursing profession into a homogeneous whole in its early days of State recognition. We all recognise the splendid devotion to duty and the self-sacrifice and loyalty of the nursing profession. They are the inheritors of a great tradition. We have traded too long on their good will, and it is our duty, our interest, desire and determination to give them the conditions essential for their service under the changed conditions of to-day.

4.40 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure that all Members of the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) for having introduced this subject. He has great knowledge of it, and he is also a member of the Departmental Committee. I remember some time ago asking a Master of Hounds what he could tell me about scent, a very difficult subject. He replied "Je ne connais pas la Rose, mais ĵai vécu près ďelle." I am rather in the same position compared with my hon. Friend. I have not the great knowledge that he has of this subject, but I have lived near it as I have been a member of the London Hospital House Committee for the last 13 years.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please translate?

Colonel Ponsonby: "I do not know the rose, but I have lived near it." It has been suggested that as this report is only an interim report, this Debate is unnecessary to-day, but I feel that the Committee would not have published an interim report if they did not think that the matter was vital and urgent. It is equally obvious that a Debate on this subject to-day is vital and well timed. Perhaps I can say what my hon. Friend could not say, and that is how much we welcome this report. It is one of great interest and is most interesting to read, and perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who is not here, on also being Members of the Committee who have produced what is really a new chapter in nursing history. Those of us who know about hospitals are agreed that there has


been a gradual improvement in conditions, but there is still a great deal to be done.
My hon. Friend referred to the agitation which was, to some extent, the origin of the appointment of this Committee. I am glad to see that the Committee state that, as regards the agitations which started the whole subject, they are satisfied that statements made in the Press and elsewhere
contained exaggerations and unjustified generalisations, which have had a deplorable effect on recruitment, and that important reforms have been carried out in many of the larger hospitals in recent years
It is true, as my hon. Friend stated, that there is a shortage of nurses, but that shortage is largely due to the increase in the demand. As the report says:
Twice as many nurses were admitted to the Register in 1937 as in 1926, and the real shortage is due to the fact that the demand has far outpaced supply
I will not repeat again the reasons given by my hon. Friend, but there was one which he did not touch upon, namely, that the shortage was partly due to the rise and fall of the economic barometer. If one looks at the figures from 1926 to 1931 and compare them with the figures from 1931 to 1934, it will be seen that, in times of moderate prosperity, the number of applicants for the profession fall off and in times of adversity they improve. The Committee have recommended a number of changes in conditions, and I would only say in regard to the conditions that those who are interested in the recruitment of nurses may emphasise too much the question of conditions, important though they may be. They are being improved and will be improved still more. I heard recently of a lady of eminence in the nursing profession who went to lecture to the girls at Roedean College. She laid a certain amount of emphasis on the improvement of conditions, on the swimming baths, on the tennis courts, improved food, and so on, but the girls said: "We want to know about patients and how to nurse them"
The Committee recommend various changes, but I only wish to deal with one matter referred to by my hon. Friend, and that is the question of shortage and how it would affect hospitals, financially and otherwise. I will give the House one

case to illustrate the effect which an improvement in working hours would have on one hospital. In the London Hospital at the end of December there were 490 nurses working, apart from the private nurses. The hours of day duty for those nurses average 105 hours per fortnight. It is suggested by the Committee, and I think it is agreed all round, that as soon as feasible the hours should be reduced to 96 hours per fortnight. In this particular hospital that change would necessitate five extra staff nurses, 10 four-year nurses on ward duty and 90 probationers, spread over four years. That would eventually mean 105 extra nurses. The cost, assuming that salaries remain as they are and the cost of food and maintenance remain as at present, would be about£11,500. That is entirely apart from the provision of the extra accommodation that would be necessary.
If all hospitals in the same or worse position have a 20 per cent. increase in their nursing staff, it is obvious that it will hit them very much financially. The extra cost would fall on the grateful and generous supporters, rich and poor, of the voluntary hospitals, and in the case of the municipal hospitals it would be extracted from unwilling ratepayers, rich and poor. It is impossible to do all this at once. First the shortage would have to be made up. It would be necessary to train the additional staff, and then there comes the question of expense. It must be remembered, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that the case of the smaller hospitals is different from that of the large hospitals. That particularly applies to buildings because in the case of many small hospitals there is probably no room for expansion.
I will now deal with the two points which my hon. Friend omitted from his interesting speech and left to me. The question of the interchangeability of pensions and the question of assistant nurses. I think we are all agreed with the report of the committee that we want a universal nursing service, if we can get it, at home, in the Colonies and, if possible, in the Empire. It is essential to make the nursing service homogenous but, unfortunately, when we consider the subject we find that it is the question of the interchangeability of pensions which interferes with this ideal. The committee say:


We agree that nursing should be pensionable service and that pensions should, if possible, be universal. It has been brought to our notice, however, by all our witnesses that the variation in conditions under which nurses qualify for pensions in voluntary hospitals and in the municipal nursing services is one of the great stumbling blocks in the way of attaining that most desirable end, the making of the nursing service a homogeneous one. We are also informed that pension difficulties handicap the free transfer of nurses to and from the services
There are at present two schemes. Under the Voluntary hospitals there is a Federated Superannuation scheme for nurses, which is contributory. This has been adopted by 82 per cent. of the voluntary hospitals (reckoned by beds) and, where possible, by the Ministry of Pensions for its nurses, the Office of Works and the Admiralty; by 700 county and district nursing associations in Great Britain and the Colonies and by the Colonial Office, and some Colonial Governments all of whom undertake to keep the members of the scheme in full benefit while employed. This scheme is welcomed by the nursing service and could be made of world-wide application. In connection with the municipal hospitals, however, the superannuation is under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1922, or in the case of asylums under the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act. If any hon. Member likes to study the subject closely I could not do better than refer him to the excellent memorandum on the subject by a Government official at the end of the Departmental Committee's report.
The result of the difference between the superannuation arrangements between municipal and voluntary hospitals is that there is no free transfer between the two. The nurse who transfers from a municipal hospital to a voluntary hospital loses her pension rights, except the return of her contributions. A nurse from a voluntary hospital going to a municipal hospital can carry her paid-up policy, representing the contributions paid to the date of her transfer. That is not satisfactory. The whole position is held up mainly by this difficulty. Therefore, I am glad that in their report the committee say:
Pensions for nurses should as far as possible be universal, and interchangeable between all branches of the service, and we recommend that discussion should take place between the parties interested, without delay, in order to effect the mobility of transfer between one type of service and another

If the nursing service is to be national it is essential that the superannuation scheme should be national also. It might mean that actuaries and accountants could sit down and weld the two schemes together, but they are extremely complicated, and I am afraid that that might be almost a superhuman task. I wonder whether it would be possible for the local authorities to adopt the federated superannuation scheme, based on insurance. I understand that there would be very little extra cost, and it would be of great benefit to the nursing service at large. We have to aim at the big idea, which is to remove the obstacles to nursing as an essential national and homogeneous service. I believe the subject was discussed when the Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill was brought forward in 1928, but an agreed clause was withdrawn on the ground that the matter was being referred to an Inter-Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health. I would ask the Minister of Health what is the present position about that?
I now come to the more controversial subject of assistant nurses. Under the Nurses Registration Act, 1919, nurses are registered with the General Nursing Council at a fee of 2s. per annum. They are State registered nurses. There are, however, a very large number of assistant nurses in the country who are not registered in anyway. Many of these assistant nurses are helpful, well trained, valuable and devoted, competent for hospital or domiciliary nursing; but there are others completely untrained, unregulated and unsuited for hospital or domiciliary nursing. These nurses receive fees of perhaps two and a half to three guineas a week, of which I2½per cent. goes to the co-operation or agency which employs them. I have received particulars of a number of extraordinary cases of these assistant nurses who call themselves nurses. I will quote a few cases. At a meeting at the Caxton Hall, on 26th March, the story was told how the matron of a hospital was rung up and informed that a patient was being nursed by one who claimed to come from her hospital, and who was a terrible woman. She turned out to be a woman who had been three months in the hospital and had been sent away as untruthful and unreliable. In another case a nurse was sent by a co-operation to a municipal hospital. She


was found to be only 17 years of age, and she said that she had had six months' training. When complaints were made of her age and inefficiency the matron was told that the girl was a very willing worker and useful for cleaning. In another case a female attendant at an institution left because she was pregnant, and generally unsatisfactory. She came back again later, from a co-operation as an assistant nurse.
As long as these assistant nurses are working under a matron in a hospital, they may to some extent be supervised, but I need hardly point out how dangerous they are in private nursing, when often they are solely responsible for the treatment ordered. In many cases they are a menace to matrons, to wards and to patients. They are on no roll, they are unregulated, they are unqualified, and yet they are nursing for gain. Something ought to be done about this. Some protection ought to be given to the State registered nurses and the public. These unqualified and untrained women bring nursing into disrepute and they may risk the lives of their patients. It has been suggested that there should be a special roll for these assistant nurses, perhaps under the General Nursing Council, quite different from the State register for trained nurses, that they should have two years' training, theoretical or practical, and that possibly they should be described by another name. There is a certain amount of controversy about this. It is suggested that they might be called approved invalid attendants or nursing orderlies. It does not much matter about the name because as between the patient and the woman she would still be the nurse, but for the protection of the public a change of name would be advisable.
It is also suggested that they might have a special badge to distinguish them from State registered nurses. After all, midwives are registered so why should not assistant nurses be registered? I see no reason why there should be any objection on the part of State registered nurses to such a proposal, because assistant nurses would be on a different roll; they would have to qualify by a two years' training and the proposal would avoid bringing the nursing profession into disrepute. As a subsidiary suggestion the matter could be attacked through the Nurses Co-operations. There are I believe

at least 700 of them in the country. Some are good and take considerable trouble to see that they have only nurses who are well qualified on their books; and they are prepared to show the qualifications of their nurses to their clients. Others are not so good; they are uncontrolled and unregulated. I believe that some local authorities have by-laws which allow for their inspection, but this is by no means universal, and it seems to me that local authorities should have power to license and register and inspect all these agencies just as they have the power to license and inspect nursing homes.
A Bill is going through the House in connection with sharepushing, to stop the pushing of shares by illegitimate means. That Bill is not objected to in the least by the genuine investment broker and by banks and the like, and I do not see why something on the same lines should not be done to control the foisting on to the public of untrained, unqualified nurses. I should like to emphasise that this matter requires tackling without delay. Owing to the present emergency many girls who are trained as nursing auxiliaries will be available, and they will have done a little nursing and be able to pose as assistant nurses. But I will leave that matter to be dealt with by the Minister of Health.
As I have said, the report is exceedingly valuable, and it may be impossible to implement it all at once. Some of the alterations suggested may be carried out by arrangement; others may require legislation. The Minister of Health was at one time Minister of Agriculture and I suggest that he should follow the precedent now being established in regard to agriculture whereby before legislation the Government consult the National Fanners' Union. I hope that when legislation regarding nursing takes place the Government will consult the General Nursing Council, the College of Nursing and other bodies who are fully conversant with the subject, so that agreed legislation may be brought before the House. But whether it is by legislation or by arrangement, it is essential that many of the recommendations in the report should be carried out. There would be no greater benefit to the nation than that this essential national service should be placed on a secure and sound foundation for the future.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Frankel: It is as well that this subject should be raised in the House this afternoon in view of the fact that in the last few years increasing attention has been paid by the public to the nursing question. That interest comes at the moment from quarters which were deaf and blind on the subject only a few years ago. Many of us have been trying to direct public attention to the importance of improving the conditions of nurses in our great municipal and voluntary hospitals. I am proud to say that I was a member of a local authority which controlled three public hospitals, which introduced a 96-hour fortnight in 1927. There are other authorities in this country which at that time, or about that time, also introduced improved conditions from the point of view of working hours, salaries and emoluments. We have gone a long distance since then, and especially during the last few years greater attention has been concentrated upon the question of nurses, for more than one reason.
I believe that the shortage of nurses is due to more than one cause. It is not only a question of the conditions, or the salary or the amenities. One has to recognise the change that has taken place in the desire of women to become nurses since the War. I can speak with some authority, because I am partly responsible for the London County Council nursing service. Our experience at County Hall has been that there is no shortage materially of probationers, no shortage materially of those who wish to enter the service. As a matter of fact, in the last year the number of probationers wishing to enter the service outnumbered three or four times the number which the county council required. The real shortage is in trained staff. Our experience has been that after they have been trained for four years and become staff nurses many of them have left our service, and we have to ask ourselves why nurses who are adequately trained and who have become staff nurses, and may probably become sisters and assistant matrons, should want to leave our service.
There is more than one reason. It is at that point I believe that the problem has to be met. We have to consider whether the amenities which are given and the salaries which are paid are good enough to keep them in the service. At this

point I should like to say a word as to the nurses co-operation and nursing agencies. It is a lamentable fact, but our experience is that after leaving us they come back a few weeks later from the agencies at four guineas per week, and this runs the public authority into many thousands of pounds extra cost during the year. Without stressing it too much I want to say to the Minister that it seems that the question of these so-called nurses co-operations will have to be carefully looked into. Some of them may be very good, but I have some doubts about others. I have a suspicion that some of them exist only for two reasons, some to exploit the nurses and some to exploit the public. I do not say that about any but the minority, but I think the matter should be carefully looked into. I am sure the House will forgive me if in what I say I deal mainly with those matters of which I have a personal knowledge rather than the general question as it affects the country. I think I can speak with a little authority for London. We have tackled the question of amenities in no uncertain way. Some of the things may be considered small and unimportant, but they are not small and unimportant to the nurses.
There is the question of freedom during time off. We have the spectacle still in London, and also in many parts of the country, of sisters and staff nurses having to go, I do not say cap in hand but poke-bonnet in hand, nurses with mature experience, to ask to be allowed on two nights of the week to stay out until 11 o'clock at night. That is really farcical in the case of trained and responsible nurses. It is one of the things complained of by the nursing staffs, and I am glad to say that the authority on the other side of the river, as well as many other authorities, have abolished that sort of thing altogether. In my view the London County Council were wise in deciding that all trained staff should be able to use their own discretion as to when they returned to the hospital in their night's off-time. It was an experiment which was started last year and, as I expected, I am glad to say that it has not been abused; it has worked very well. The nurses realise the importance of the work they are doing and respond very well to the trust we are placing in them. The only people on whom we place any restrictions are the one, two and three-year probationers. In


their case we, like other authorities which employ them, recognise that we are, in fact, for the time being acting as their guardians. They come from many parts of the country to the district in which they work, and in many cases have no friends or relatives.
Having stressed the point that the shortage of nurses is not among the probationers I think we must examine why it is that higher up in the scale we are losing considerable numbers of staff. Here the question of non-residence or residence must arise. This is a subject upon which the Inter-Departmental Committee have not yet reported, although I presume they will report upon it in their final report. It is a question on which, perhaps, I do not hold the same views as a good many hon. Members. I still favour residential service. I know that it is now supposed to be unpopular with modern girls, as interfering with their rights of freedom, but I think that is a difficulty which can be overcome. I believe the reason for the dislike of residence is not only that the nurses are disciplined in the hospital, but also in their own nurses' club, that they are still under hospital control in their leisure time in the nurses' home, and also that in many cases the nurses' home is completely unattractive and undesirable in every way, from the point of view of accommodation and the possibilities of recreation.
It would be very unwise of me to suggest that the authority with which I am connected has solved all these problems, but we are attempting to do so, and in some hospitals I believe we have succeeded. Recently, we have tried an experiment in one of our greatest hospitals in London, where a new nurses' home has been built. That home is not under the control of the hospital, but under the control of the nurses who live in it, through a specially appointed warden and assistant warden, who run the home with the help of a committee of nurses of every grade, from probationers to sisters. I am hoping for the success of that scheme, because I believe that if there is an improvement in nurses' conditions in the hospitals and in the nurses' homes, together with possibilities of recreation and of being able to ask friends to come and see them, and proper facilities of that sort, in the long run that will be an answer to non-residence, and will prove

to be more attractive to the nurses than living out. I could tell the House of a good many instances that have been brought officially to my notice of the conditions in which nurses live in non-residence. I hesitate to raise the question whether or not women look after them selves well enough when living in rooms—I am terrified of saying more than one or two words on that subject—but it has been brought to my notice officially that in one case three sisters were living in one room in non-residence, and evidence has also been brought before me of non-resident nurses who have not been properly fed as a result of their living out of the hospital. I think it will be generally recognised that this applies not only to nurses, for it is common talk that where people live away from a hostel or home—

Mrs. Tate: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that when women are paid adequately they will eat adequately, and that while they are underpaid, they are likely to spend money on things which amuse them more than food? That is the answer.

Mr. Frankel: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, but that does not improve my opinion of those ladies who spend money on things that amuse them rather than on food. I believe that from the point of view of the patients, every hospital has a right to make sure that the nurses shall be fit and capable to do their work, and it seems to me that the only way a hospital can be sure of that is by making certain that the nurses are provided at least with good meals, and have proper medical supervision. I believe that can be done better by residence than by non-residence. After a fairly long study of the subject, I feel that, even with improved conditions and improved salaries for nurses, one can never make a good nurse of a person who really has not a calling for the work. If one grants that it is necessary to have some calling for the work, I feel that such a nurse will want to identify herself with the hospital and its work.
The question of money has been mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). I want to say a few words on that subject on behalf of local authorities all over the country. The time must come when the House will have to stop placing further burdens on the


local authorities by law, which are not met in some way by Government grants. We have had experience of that sort of thing more than ever during the last few years. As far as the London County Council are concerned, they have anticipated the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. A year ago they introduced the 48-hour week or the 96-hour fortnight. This has involved considerable extra expense, for which the council do not get one penny of grant. I know that the Minister of Health will say that that is taken into account in the block grant, but my experience of that proves what I have said, that we do not get a penny for it. Therefore, while I am glad that this Debate is taking place and that public opinion is being focused on the nursing profession, I would like to say that there are local authorities which understand the difficulties and are trying to meet them, and we hope that the Government will help us in the work we are proposing to do.

5.23 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: I feel diffident in intervening in this Debate after the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel), who has had practical experience of these matters on a local authority. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) spoke with authority and experience on these matters, as a medical officer of health, a doctor and a member of the Inter-Departmental Committee; but I can say, with the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby), who seconded the Amendment, that I, too, have lived near the rose during the last two or three months, as a lay member of the Inter-Departmental Committee, and in that capacity I would like to make one or two general observations.
In the first place, although this is an interim report, it seems to me that the main facts have been established and the main conclusions reached. I stress that because I hope the Minister will not even await the publication of the full report before he implements some of the recommendations to which the committee already have unanimously agreed. The situation is a very serious one. Hon. Members who have spoken so far have gone into the question of the acute shortage of nurses. We have heard of a shortage in the London County Council

and other county hospitals, and we know that it exists in hospitals all over the country. That is the position in peace time, but it takes no account of the very grave situation which might arise in the event of an emergency. The other day, in a Debate on air-raid precautions, the Minister of Health said:
As to nurses, I agree that there is an urgent need. Eighty thousand are available, but it may be that three times that number will be required before the war is over"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 190; col. 2878, Vol. 345.]
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was referring to State-registered nurses, or whether he included in that number the auxiliary register of nurses, of which he spoke; but I should have thought that, in the main, he included in the number the State-registered nurses. This shows the serious situation which might arise in an emergency. The report reveals how very serious is the situation. It is a national problem which must be tackled without delay. The hon. Member for Mile End mentioned some of the restrictions that are imposed upon nurses. There is no doubt that the committee—and the hon. Member for St. Albans will confirm me in this—received evidence which went to show that there are conditions still existing in hospitals which would not be tolerated in most occupations open to educated women. I will quote only one example—which no doubt will be familiar to hon. Members who have read the report—of the kind of atmosphere that is sometimes created in a hospital. It is evidence given by a nurse who had an excellent report both from her headmistress and the matron of the training school, so that there can be no suggestion that she was a failure, and an inefficient nurse with a grudge. She said:
I was told the first day I entered hospital that I must regard it as the Army, matron as the commander-in-chief, the sisters as officers, the staff nurses as non-commissioned officers, and the probationers as privates. This military atmosphere created in me a strong feeling of fear of my seniors which I think accounts for the dislike of sisters shown by many nurses
No one would suggest that is universally the case in hospitals, but that it does exist in some is certainly a fact. The committee was also told of late leave being cancelled because the probationer was three minutes late for breakfast. I wonder how many of us would survive that test? There is no doubt that in no profession


is discipline more vital than it is in the nursing profession, but there is a world of difference between discipline and irksome and irritating restrictions. I am convinced, as anyone who heard the evidence must be convinced, that these restrictions act as a definite deterrent. Other very valuable evidence was given on this point, which I think should be quoted as showing how different is the spirit in most of the schools in the country from the spirit prevailing in some of the hospitals. It was evidence given by the Association of Headmistresses. They said:
Many hospitals appear to give too little consideration to the trend of modern psychology and modern training, and fail to recognise that young people to-day will often loyally adhere to principles, the reasonableness of which has been proved, while they are goaded into rebellion by prohibitions for which they can see no good reason, and which suggest merely a too tyrannical authority
That is a maxim which might well be adopted not only in schools and hospitals, but sometimes in political parties as well. [Interruption]I am sure hon. Members would never accuse me of meaning the party above the Gangway. The London County Council has introduced new rules which seemed to the committee to be eminently reasonable and might well be copied by other employers of nurses. I would ask the Minister whether he is prepared to circulate either that set of rules or any other set of rules which he may, after consultation, consider to be better, to the hospitals as suggestions? It is true that nineteenth century restrictions deter twentieth century girls from joining the profession, but, on the whole the restrictions form but a small part of the problem. I believe the two principal factors to be long hours and low salaries. Dame Agnes Hunt, in her very remarkable autobiography, tells us that when she first became a probationer many years ago the hours in her hospital were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. with two hours off every other day—if they were lucky. Those are conditions which she quotes as belonging to a past which is long past, but, as a matter of fact, although there has been an improvement, it is staggering to find how small that improvement has been. As a lay member of the committee who had, I am ashamed to say known very little about these conditions previously, the one thing which struck me most forcibly was the scandalously long hours

which nurses are expected to work. I quote one section of the report upon that point. The committee say:
We have reason to believe that at the moment 9 to 10 hours' on duty' per day for at least six days of the week is not uncommon in hospitals, although there are many which have reduced their hours below this figure and some in which the nurses work considerably longer
That there should be any hospital at this time in which more than nine or ten hours per day are worked is really a scandal. There are not many of them, but that there should be any at all is, as I say, a scandal and ought to be put right. No doubt things have improved, but when we consider the enormous improvement which there has been in hours of work in other trades and professions, the improvement in the nursing profession is seen to be very slow indeed. Nursing is work which puts a heavier physical and nervous strain on the individual than the work of most other professions, and therefore it is little wonder that nurses suffer from chronic over-tiredness. This chronic over-tiredness affects every grade in the profession from the probationer up to the matron. They are all overworked from the highest to the lowest. Recommendations have been made in the report that a 96-hour fortnight should be introduced as soon as possible in all hospitals. That is a very proper recommendation, and it is most urgent to see that it does not remain a recommendation but is carried into effect.
Stress was laid by many witnesses on the progress already made, and it was pointed out that the principle of the 96-hour fortnight had been adopted in the London County Council hospitals. I do not know, however, in how many of them it is being carried out and I think that, as regards the actual reduction of hours, progress generally is exceedingly and painfully slow. The report recognises that there may be, and probably will be, a great many instances in which hospitals may be reluctant or unable to carry out these recommendations. It has, therefore, been decided that the public grants which are to be given to the hospitals towards the carrying out of these reforms should be used to coerce the: hospitals into carrying out the reforms. I am not clear in my mind how that will work or whether it will work at all.
Take, for example, the case of a small hospital which has very poor resources


and is unable to reduce hours of work. What is to be the position of the Ministry of Health? Is the Ministry to refuse the grant which would be necessary in order to make it possible for that hospital to pay increased salaries to the nurses who are already upon its register? It seems to me that would be an impossible position to take up. But if the Ministry do not take that position, then they have no coercive power left and this proposal becomes a dead letter. It was for this reason that five members of the committee put in a note of reservation in which they said that they did not think it would be possible to reduce the hours without legislation. I realise that that is a subject which cannot be discussed to-day. All I say is that I am sure that the coercive power suggested in the report will not make it possible to carry out the recommendations within a reasonable time. If we are ready to wait until the end of the century, perhaps we may get this reform in the majority of hospitals then, but if we want to see it done now, it is only possible, I think, by legislation.
The second factor to which I would refer is that of salaries. This question has already been dealt with by several hon. Members. In this connection I hope the Minister will, as soon as possible, set up a salaries committee representative of nurses and employers as suggested in the report. This committee, it is suggested, should be established to negotiate standards of salaries which would approximate to those appertaining to other comparable spheres of employment. With regard to the suggested grants, these indicate a new departure. It has been recognised by the Committee that these reforms, which are vitally necessary, can only be carried out with the assistance of public money and this, it is also recognised, would involve a measure of public control. I hope this may be the beginning of a new relationship between the hospitals and the State. Speaking for myself, I may say that the more evidence I heard upon this matter, the more convinced I became that the hospitals cannot be run efficiently—I mean this only in a financial sense; I make no other suggestion—on a voluntary basis.
An hon. Member above the Gangway said he did not think it right or proper that at this time further burdens should be

put on the local authorities. The report recommends that grants should be given to voluntary hospitals, but there was a feeling—and some of us signed a reservation to that effect—that the position of the local authorities and the burdens imposed upon them, would be intolerable if they were expected to carry out these very large and expensive improvements. Therefore, it seems vital that the National Exchequer should bear either the whole or part of the additional financial burden. That would only be equitable. May I again urge the Minister to put the recommendation of the report into effect as soon as possible, and not to await the publication of the full report? This is a matter of vital national importance, and it is none the less so because it has been neglected for so long. It has been said to-day that no profession in the country has a finer tradition than the nursing profession. I am sure we must all deplore the conditions which have been revealed in this report, and I believe support will come from all parts of the House for the proposition embodied in this Amendment. I only hope that that support will be followed by swift action on the part of the Government.

5.42 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: As the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) has said, this matter is one of real urgency. In this report, and in every speech which has been made this afternoon, we have had presented a most unsatisfactory picture. From the point of view of the nurse we have had a picture of over-work, inadequate food, a life hedged in by petty restrictions, bad attention to health and— one aspect which has not, I think, been sufficiently stressed—a very poor prospect at the end of a long and arduous training. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) spoke of the improvements which had been made by the London County Council, and I would like to add my tribute to that body for what has been done, in improving conditions for nurses. But I cannot agree with all he said. The hon. Member spoke very strongly in favour of residence in the hospital for trained staff, and said that he desired this on the ground that women who lived on their own outside the hospital, would not pay sufficient attention to their food, and would not be able to do their work properly or do justice to their patients as a result. I cannot believe that


the hon. Member who knows a great deal about the subject can have omitted to note the reference on page 59 of the report to the question of food in hospitals. The Committee say:
It is quite clear to us, however, that the quality of the catering provided by different hospitals at the present time varies within very wide limits and that in a considerable proportion of hospitals, it falls well below what may be considered a reasonable standard.
I do not think that residence in hospital and getting meals there, necessarily ensures to the nurses the standard of nourishment which they ought to have.
I turn for a moment to the other side of the picture, namely, the present position of the sick. No one can suggest that either inside or outside hospital the conditions as regards the patients are satisfactory. If in the hospital the patient is nursed by a perhaps rather ill-fed, perhaps slightly dissatisfied, certainly very over-tired woman and by a staff which is constantly hampered because of shortage of numbers. Outside the hospital the conditions for patients may also be unsatisfactory. We have heard from two or three hon. Members of the conditions which prevail in some of the nursing cooperation societies which send out nurses. Many of them are admirable and their nurses are competent and fully trained, but the number of cases in which the patient has no guarantee that the nurse is either a suitable woman or is properly trained are all too frequent. It does not stop with the nursing co-operation societies. Conditions in London nursing homes which I have referred to on many occasions in this House, are equally unsatisfactory. There are many nursing homes in this country where conditions are unhygienic and where, again, the patient has no guarantee that the nurse incharge is a really trained or competent woman. I regret to say that I believe one of the reasons for conditions in the nursing profession being unsatisfactory, and for it being so underpaid a profession, is that it is a profession which has been almost entirely reserved for women. It was indeed for many years almost the only profession which was open to women.
I was very distressed to hear the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle)—he very wisely turned his back on me while he said it—say that he would like

a larger number of women enter this profession, which was perhaps much more suitable to them than the medical profession. I thought it a most extraordinary remark. I do not agree with it in the very least, and I can only say that when I had the honour of representing West Willesden there were in that constituency—a very poor constituency, where the fees paid are never very high—at least three women doctors, all of whom were doing extraordinarily well, earning devoted gratitude from their patients and comparing very favourably with their male competitors. I therefore think it is curious that any hon. Member in the year 1939 should get up and say, in effect, that the nursing profession is more suitable for them and that they should leave the medical profession, with, of course, its higher emoluments and status, to that wonderful being the male.

Sir F. Fremantle: The hon. Lady did not quite pay attention. Every word that I said was very carefully chosen, and I said that many women would be better suited to nursing probably, and probably many men, whereas others are admirable members of the medical profession.

Mrs. Tate: I am glad the hon. Member thought over his words. The impression that he gave at the time was quite definitely that women were better nurses than doctors, but I am very sorry if I did not do him justice. I agree with the hon. Member for Anglesey in feeling very grave disquiet over this question of the recommendation of grants to hospitals in order to enable them to engage a larger number of nurses and, therefore, confine the hours of work to 96 in the fortnight. In my opinion, that is a dangerous suggestion, for this reason: Why should you give a grant to voluntary hospitals for this one thing? Do you not open the door to many other demands? Are you not going to say that where a hospital needs a better nurses' home, better X-ray apparatus, better theatres, it must apply for a grant? I agree with the hon. Lady, and, much as I regret it, I believe that the life of the voluntary hospital is coming to an end.

Sir F. Fremantle: Oh, no.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member says, "Oh, no," but there is not the smallest doubt, if you look ahead, that it will not be possible for ever to maintain satisfac-


tory voluntary hospitals in this country, much as I regret it from very many points of view. I believe that if we start giving a grant in order to enable hospitals to take on a larger number of nurses, we are opening the door and making a rather invidious choice of one particular thing for which they can have a grant. I believe that you would have a larger number of women entering and remaining in the nursing profession if you had better opportunities and better pay for them when they were trained. The pay of a nurse at the present time, when she has completed her training, is wholly inadequate, considering the training which she has had to undergo and the work that she is called upon to do, and that is, in my belief, the real reason for the shortage, in addition, of course, to the restrictions placed upon nurses during training, which are, as many hon. Members have said, quite ridiculous and would not be tolerated by the other sex or in any other profession.
The suggestion that you should register assistant nurses for general nursing I believe to be one very detrimental both to the nursing profession and to the general public. It is quite true that at the present time you have unqualified women going about with the name of nurse and nursing the sick, but because you have an unsatisfactory condition of affairs today, that is no excuse for having an unsatisfactory condition of affairs in the future. I agree that many of these partly trained women are doing magnificent work and that there are very many cases, for instance, among mental defectives, in mental hospitals, among the chronic sick, also perhaps in fever hospitals, and even outside among the public, where you do not need a fully trained nurse. In that case let us have, by law, a definite type of case which may be nursed by an unqualified person, and by all means let us have salaries legally laid down, but do not introduce the dangerous principle of allowing an assistant nurse to compete with a State-registered nurse in the open market. If you do, it will inevitably mean that the very poor will go into hospitals where we hope the conditions will gradually become better and better and where they will receive good nursing; and the rich will be able to afford the State-registered nurse, who, we hope, will be a very highly qualified woman. The body of

people in between—the middle class— however ill they are, will inevitably fall back on the assistant and partially trained nurse, for reasons of economy.
I do not think you will improve the status of nurses by registering untrained women, and I think it is grossly unfair to the woman who has become a State-registered nurse, who has given up many years of her life to that exceedingly arduous training, to find herself in competition with a woman who is recognised as a nurse, but who has not actually completed her training. I do not think the public will be able to differentiate between the two sufficiently clearly if you accept them both for public nursing. I would have no objection to the assistant nurse in any institution where she could be partly under the control of really trained people. I only think she is a danger, however good many of them may be, when allowed to go out and nurse people in their own homes in competition with registered nurses. I therefore very much hope that that recommendation will not be accepted by the Government in its entirety. I also hope that the Minister will take an early opportunity of improving London's nursing homes and of seeing that a sufficient number of their staff are at least fully trained women. I also hope the question of the nursing cooperative will be very carefully looked into and that where an untrained woman is sent out, both the doctor and the patient will always be informed of the fact.
I do not wish to see the age at which women enter the nursing profession lowered, but I think it might be possible to find work in hospitals for girls who are very anxious to enter the nursing profession, and who cannot quite bridge the gap between the school-leaving age and the age at which they can actually begin nursing, by some form of work in the hospitals which would greatly relieve the present staff and which might not be unsuitable work for such young people to do. In any case I feel sure that the setting-up of the committee was a very valuable and much needed step, and I sincerely hope that its recommendations, most of which all of us will agree are admirable, will be put into effect without delay. It is a tragedy that this profession should ever have been allowed to get into its present condition. I do not refer to the standard of nursing. I think it is a


miracle that the number of women wishing to become nurses should be as great as it is, and I believe that the standard of nursing and the conscientiousness of our nurses is a wonderful testimony to our women. It is a matter of pride to this country that it has not deteriorated under conditions which, in many instances, are well nigh intolerable.

5.56 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: There are many Members in this House who, on looking at the Order Paper, will perhaps feel that this Amendment has very little in common with the important questions which face us during this week, but I feel that the service we are discussing is one which will be of the greatest importance in the event of any hostilities. In fact, it will be a most important branch of our Civil Defence, and I ask the Minister of Health seriously to consider putting into effect immediately at least some of the recommendations of the interim report. I feel that my colleague the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) made a very important statement to the House when he said that it had to be remembered that we were not in need of probationer nurses, but that we were in need of fully qualified nurses in our hospitals. In fact, the important point is—and those who are familiar with hospital work know this full well—that it is after training that the nurses decide to leave the hospitals. Therefore, what recommendations should we immediately put into effect?
I am surprised that the Seconder of the Motion said that we should not stress the conditions of nurses. He said that a friend of his had been to Roedean and had told the girls about the nursing profession, that he had told them of their salaries, of the living conditions, and of the lives they led, and that the girls had got up and said, "We don't want to hear about the conditions; we want to hear about the work." I can only suggest that those girls are supernatural. Never previously have I heard of a potential body of workers of any kind who wanted to hear only about the work and never about the conditions. I might remind the hon. Member that Roedean is not the recruiting ground for nurses. I think these young girls at Roedean, excellent children and very fortunate children, were very interested in nursing and wanted to know about the life of nurses objectively

perhaps, but not subjectively, and I want to tell the hon. Member that it is because many people—and I say this very kindly—think as he does, that perhaps conditions are not all important, that they have failed to change the conditions of the nurses in the last century.
The Mover of the Amendment said that the most controllable factor, when thinking of how we should change the conditions, was that of the hours. Again I disagree. It has already been pointed out in the House that it is very difficult in many hospitals to shorten the hours because there are not sufficient nurses to take over the extra work that would ensue. I want to stress two important points which arise from the fact that we want to make conditions so attractive that our staff nurses, our fully trained nurses, will be satisfied to remain in hospital. One of the most important recommendations is that the nurses should be allowed to live out. This has already been discussed, perhaps ad nauseam, and there is some controversy about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mile End, on the one hand, talked about fully qualified nurses as being responsible people and thought they should be allowed to come in at any time at night without feeling that there would be an inquisition on their return. I agree with him. On the other hand, however, he says that if these responsible people are allowed to live out it will be found that they are not being fed properly and, in fact, that they will not be able to find proper accommodation. On the one hand, my hon. Friend talks of these nurses as responsible women, and, on the other hand, treats them as though they were adolescents who come to London from the country and are incapable of finding proper accommodation.

Mr. Frankel: The responsibility of the nurses to which I referred exists, I believe, in every other respect except in the one I mentioned.

Dr. Summerskill: When my hon. Friend talks in this way of nurses, who are chiefly women, I hope he does not also feel that men are as incapable of finding accommodation, and that every man who is not blessed with a wife is incapable of finding proper accommodation for himself. If he does, it is a reflection on every landlady in the country. If a woman is capable of leaving home, as many of them do when they become nurses and undertake this arduous and


responsible work she is capable of finding adequate accommodation for herself. The reason why the three sisters referred to by an hon. Member lived in one room was that they were unable to afford better accommodation. The question is an economic one. If the women are paid better they will get better accommodation. The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) said it was significant that those jobs where women were employed were inevitably low-paid jobs. It is true that directly a woman's job becomes well paid it is taken up by the male sex. That has been found in hairdressing, dressmaking and cooking. Another interesting point is that the women are not well organised.
The question of living out is one of the most important points that have to be considered if we want to improve the nursing service. Women will not tolerate the conditions to which they had to submit at the end of the last century. When I am told that if our nurses are given good food, a good home and better pay they will want to live in the hospital, I ask why is it that there is this perpetual wail over domestic service. I shall never forget an advertisement I read in the "Times" a fortnight ago. A bachelor wrote that he was one in family, had seven servants, was very little trouble and never entertained, and yet he could not get a kitchen maid, although he offered her good wages, good food and a good home. I can understand why that man is a bachelor. He certainly does not understand the modern woman in any strata of life. The fact is that, although a woman wants good food and good wages, she insists on being the captain of her soul outside working hours. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End, who has such a lot to do with nursing services, might succeed in a few years' time in improving wages, food and living conditions, he would still find that by the time nurses are qualified to choose for themselves, the same difficulty will arise. They will leave the hospital to live outside and either go into a co-operative organisation or do something of that kind.
It is strange that no mention has been made of the question of nurses having to resign on marrying, and I hope the Minister will take it seriously. It is another survival of the nineteenth century that a nurse, after she has undergone an arduous training of four years, has to resign if she decides to marry. It is a

stupid waste of excellent material. You have a charming and efficient young nurse and she is to be penalised because she obeys a fundamental instinct and because she wants a home and children. She then has to leave the profession for which she has worked so hard. Surely marriage does not unfit a nurse for her particular work. Now that we are allowing nurses to live out, what objection is there to married nurses remaining in the service? This restriction is a survival from the time when all nursing was done by nuns and convents were used as hospitals. An anomalous position has arisen today. On looking at the hoardings last week we saw the head and shoulders of a beautiful young woman dressed as a nurse. It was a poster appealing to the young women of this country, single, widows and married, to join the Civil Defence nursing service. During the week 100,000 young women have been asked to join this service. They will have a short training in a hospital, and the anomalous situation will arise in which we shall have young married women in our hospitals—I agree on a temporary basis—and in the same hospitals fully qualified nurses who will be forced to resign if they dare announce that they are to be married. When we are discussing these changes, which no doubt would be regarded as revolutionary by Florence Nightingale, we should change this old-fashioned restriction and allow our nurses, who are now to be allowed to live outside the hospital, to get married and remain in the profession.
The controversial subject of assistant nurses has come up. This question is causing a good deal of unhappiness and anxiety among the State-registered nurses. I feel, however, that there is some misapprehension on the subject. The seconder of the Amendment told the House of cases where girls of 17 and undesirable women had been sent out by co-operative organisations. Most nurses, if they are not qualified, are called assistant nurses, and the object of the recommendation of the committee is to put into this role women, like the wife of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who he said, hated examinations but loved nursing. The new role would include women who have not the same intellectual equipment as those who can pass the examination needed for the State register, but who have those attributes of kindliness, sympathy and understanding which


are so essential for good nursing. The object of this role is to include such women, after they have had two years' training, as second-grade nurses. I have always regarded these women as the Cinderellas of the nursing profession and I welcome this recommendation.
I hope that the Minister will not allow the rather violent feelings which have been aroused among State-registered nurses to interfere with this role, and that he will be able to arrive at some amicable arrangement so that these two grades of nurses will work together. I know that in saying this I shall probably provoke all sorts of people to write to me and tell me that I am wrong, but I speak as one who knows hospital life very well and who has watched these assistant nurses dealing with what we in hospitals call "the old chronics." There is nothing more heartbreaking than dealing with the old chronic—the old paralytic, the old man who has had a stroke and is too much trouble at home and has to be looked after in hospital. The old chronics are always given to the assistant nurses, who have to be kind, patient and pleasant in all circumstances. In giving them this role, therefore, we are only meting out justice to a category of nurses who deserve the very best we can give them.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health to consider making provision for nurses in the event of hostilities. I wonder whether it has ever occurred to him to inquire whether air-raid precautions committees, which have been set up by the county authorities and which have to provide shelter for those working in hospitals, have made any provision for the nursing staffs. I agree that a nurse or doctor or anybody on duty during an air raid has to stay by the patient whatever happens. In our hospitals, however, only about one-third of the nursing staff are on duty and our shift system operates so well—in, for instance, the county of Middlesex—that two-thirds of the nursing staff are not on duty. Therefore, during an air raid these workers, who must be regarded as key workers, are completely un provided for. Many of them might be in a nurses' home. If it happened that the nurses' home were bombed we should immediately lose workers who are of tremendous importance. Indeed, if the hospital were bombed and two-thirds of the staff were

saved it would mean we could immediately put into operation a skeleton service.
In Middlesex we have provided dark blinds for the hospitals and also surveyed the mortuary accommodation—the mortuary accommodation was the first thing surveyed—and are putting up huts for extra casualties, but we have made no provision for the staff. It occurred to me the week before last, when we were discussing the Bill which makes it obligatory upon employers to provide adequate accommodation for their staff if it numbers more than 50, that it ought also to be obligatory upon local authorities to supply protection for the nursing staffs of the hospitals. I hope the Minister will consider this point, and give the employés in our hospitals the same consideration as the employés of private firms are to get.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Liddall: I appreciate the privilege of being permitted to follow the "three Graces" who have given us most interesting and informative speeches, but not one of them told us whether or not it was at Roedean where they were trained to become such delightful speakers and such perfect young ladies. We are also most grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) for calling attention to-day to the nursing services and the inadequate supply of nurses to meet the increasing demand. The youngest age at which nurses are permitted to sit as probationers has been stated to be 16, 17 or 18, but no one has yet mentioned the age limit at which a woman is prohibited from sitting for the probationers' examination. I believe that the limit is round about 30, and that in possibly the majority of London hospitals it is even below that age—that is, the age limit for general training. In the present uncertain state of the world surely this state of affairs should be altered. Circumstances often prevent a woman when young from taking up the nursing profession as a career, and doubtless there are large numbers of women who have been left childless widows who would, if it were possible for them to do so, gladly become probationer nurses
.
If it is contended that a woman of 30 is too old to be trained as a nurse what should be the age limit for a doctor? Professor Kirk is alleged to have stated


at University College this year that no man is ever too old to become a medical student, so long as he can pass the preliminary examination; and I have a newspaper cutting which states that a former town clerk is burning the midnight oil, at the age of 72, in order to obtain his doctor's degree. If the medical profession, with their abundance of knowledge and in the light of modern thought, can admit a man of 72 as a student, why should the nursing profession turn up their noses at the woman of 30 or 40 who is desirous of being trained to render a service to the community and at the same time to earn something towards her own living?
To-day, we are told, there are about 100,000 women of from 18 to 55 wanting to be trained as nurses for work in the event of war. We are also told that some hospitals are already so short of nurses that they are inviting refugees to become probationers. Is this because our own girls are not sufficiently intelligent to pass the test examinations of the Nursing Council? What a slur on British womanhood. What a slap in the face to public generosity through voluntary hospitals. If this be true, I suggest that the Nursing Council are step by step building barriers of class distinction around what they romantically term "a noble profession" Its Victorian outlook, derived from the days of the cloister, is cramping the growth of what is one of Britain's most essential services, not only now but for all time. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for St. Albans refer to the examination and how difficult it was for some people to pass it. I have here a few questions taken from the recent General Nursing Council test education examination, which no doubt the Nursing Council will say is merely a test of intelligence or of the standard of education. Question No. 3 runs thus:
Two names are always coupled. Example: Balaam and the ass. Re-write the following names, dealing with 10 only, and adding the second: Jack and—, David and—,Tweedledum and—,Pyramus and—, William and—, Abraham and—.
And so it goes on. I ask hon. Members if they honestly think that a sick or dying man would mind if his nurse could not couple the names of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Hitherto emphasis has always been laid on the fact that a nurse's life is full of sacrifice. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for St. Albans say that

we have traded far too long on the traditions of her profession. That is another relic of the past and it should be scrapped. From the psychological point of view it is surely wrong for a person to be encouraged to cherish ideas of martyrdom in what has been voluntarily selected as a career. Every year the public pays more and more money in hard cash for education, which means or should mean a higher standard of reasoning power in adolescence. The result is that the modern young woman chooses nursing as a career chiefly as a means of livelihood. She expects her full share of pay and leisure, as does every sensible member of society, and if she has been reared right she will tolerate neither snobbishness nor favouritism, which appear to be the evils most likely to arise from the suggested double register. In my considered opinion the nursing problem will not be satisfactorily solved until there is a complete overhaul of existing machinery. The ridiculous tests to which I have referred should be abolished, probationers should be better paid, examination fees should be reduced and there should be less control in the matter of dress when off duty. Given improved conditions there will be more recruits, and happy, healthy and contented nurses will be more ready to respond to the call of duty and be better able to administer to suffering humanity.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I propose to confine my remarks to the part of the subject with which I am most closely familiar, and that is the conditions of service of nurses in the voluntary hospitals. I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to the complete change which has taken place in the last 30 years in the whole aspect of the nursing profession. In that period nursing has become a profession, and the obvious symptoms of that are that the same amount of attention is being paid to the education of the nurse as has been paid to the education of the medical student. I am glad to say that the movement originated and has been much more efficiently carried out in the voluntary hospitals than anywhere else. The first step in that direction, a very important one, was taken in 1895 when it was decided that there was to be a preliminary training for the probationer on reaching hospital. The young girl coming to the hospital is not thrown at once into the wards, as was the case


when I was a student, and left to find her feet experimentally in that way. She is now carefully trained and is not allowed to go into the wards for three months after joining the hospital.
Then comes another very important part of the training, and this is undertaken by an officer who is now known as the sister-tutor. That system was introduced in 1914, and in my own hospital the arrangement now is that there are three full-time professional sister-tutors who are commissioned to instruct probationers in the very intricate duties of a nurse. It is no longer left to the probationers to pick things up as they go along. They are carefully trained. These professional sister-tutors have diplomas from King's College or the University of London. It is useless to say that you must go back to the uneducated nurse; you must have educated nurses who can keep in touch with developments in nursing at the present time.
Now let me say a word about improvements in the housing and other amenities of nursing. Hon. Members will probably be surprised at figures which I will give of the expenditure on nurses' homes, incurred by voluntary hospitals out of voluntary funds during the last 10 years. In London, more than£500,000 was spent on buildings and£27,000 was spent on equipment. In the provinces,£1,250,000 was spent on buildings and£96,000 upon equipment. In Scotland,£99,000 was spent on buildings and£5,000 on equipment. In Ireland the respective sums were£119,000 and£6,000. Perhaps I might also give figures, with which Londoners are perhaps more familiar, showing the expenditure by London hospitals upon nurses' homes. At Middlesex Hospital£250,000 has been spent in that way in the last eight years, at St. Thomas Hospital£110,000, at my own hospital£100,000, at Great Ormond Street£105,000, and at Westminster Hospital£180,000. As a result of all that expenditure, nurses in the great hospitals are in a very different position from that which has been pictured in many speeches this afternoon.
Much harm has been done to the recruitment of nurses by the totally fallacious statements that are sometimes made, for example about the underpayment of the profession. Let me give the figures in

relation to probationers. A probationer joins a hospital to learn a profession. Usually the person who wishes to learn a profession is asked to pay for that learning. The parent who wishes to put a boy or girl into the medical profession has to pay at least£1,000, but the probationer at the hospital is taught her profession all the time and is paid quite reasonably. That fact seems to put her into a totally different position. In no other profession that I know of does the person who is being trained get paid for learning; that is part of the bargain with the probationer nurse which ought to be kept in view very closely throughout this Debate. In point of fact, voluntary hospitals are aggrieved because municipal hospitals pay far more money to probationers than do the voluntary hospitals. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been no dearth of applicants at the voluntary hospitals, and my own hospital has a very long waiting list. It is, therefore, not desirable to represent the profession of nursing in that way and I hope that the aspect which I have presented will be far more carefully considered and kept in mind than it has been. The probationer is learning a very arduous and difficult profession all the time that she is in the hospital, and in my own hospital—

Sir Joseph Nail: Would the hon. Member be good enough to tell us what hospital that is?

Sir E. Graham-Little: I ought to have said that before. It is St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London. It has now a very complete installation for nurses, of which I will give just a few details. Every nurse has a bedroom entirely to herself with hot and cold water and adequate cupboard room. Recreation rooms are available to the nurses at any time, and several rooms are allocated to the private reception of any guests whom the nurses can invite. There are facilities for recreation, including a recently erected tennis court. In the main nurses' home there is a splendid recreation room. At Aldeburgh, there is a convalescent or rest home with excellent accommodation, placed at the use of the nursing staff entirely without cost because it is sufficiently endowed to allow of that being done. Probably most hon. Members know there is also one of the finest swimming baths, placed at the disposal of the nurses as well as of the medical students. Those details give a far more


accurate picture of what is being done for the nurses in the nurses' homes.

Captain Elliston: Would the hon. Member say how much is paid to the probationers? I think he said he would give us some details.

Sir E. Graham-Little: The probationer nurse, during her period of training, is paid, I think, at the average rate of£26 a year. That, of course, includes board and lodging and, as I say, tuition supplied all the time.
The whole position of the nursing profession has changed. It is regarded now as a very serious profession for highly educated girls, and that makes for some difficulty in getting recruits for it. Nursing is becoming more and more a skilled profession, rightly and properly, and because it is a skilled profession many women who enter it are very keen upon following it. Anyone with experience of men and women knows the great danger which arises with the keen student who works too hard and does not get sufficient recreation. It is difficult to restrain the keen student from doing too much in her nursing time. That is all to the good and arises because the nursing profession is now upon an equality with the medical profession. I like to think that that change has come because the voluntary hospitals have taken the lead in bringing it about.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I hesitate to cross swords with the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little) upon a subject which he knows so well, but it seemed either that he was generalising from the particular instances he gave of his own hospital and drawing conclusions which were out of all proportion to the problem with which he was dealing, or that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment gave us an entirely wrong picture and that the Inter-Departmental Committee had been spending its time upon a problem which did not exist. The hon. Member gave us particulars of his own hospital—as he called it—but because of the list of conditions which he read out he seemed to come to the conclusion that there was no problem elsewhere. Having solved the problem in his hospital by doing what it is suggested should be generally done, he assumes that there is no problem left.

He said he regarded the nursing profession as now upon an equality with the medical profession, and suggested that because their position when training is similar to that of the medical student they should therefore expect to pay for that training. That argument would be good if we were seeking to set up a close corporation limited in number, but the nursing profession has to meet the requirements of the country with much larger numbers than we have yet thought of, and the argument used by the hon. Member therefore breaks down. I do not find, moreover, that nurses put themselves upon an equality with the medical profession, particularly in respect of remuneration and payment for services.
I have intervened in this Debate, in spite of my lack of knowledge from medical or nursing points of view, because I have developed for a number of years an interest in children seeking to enter the nursing profession. We have been told this afternoon of many of the problems in relation to that profession and several suggestions have been made why the profession is not popular. I think that the problem is, generally speaking, an economic one and, from my own experience, I believe that the social standing given to the individual by the wearing of nursing uniform has had to be accepted instead of wages. The position occupied by the nurse as an honourable member of a very delightful profession has been taken to mean that the profession was particularly exclusive, and I am not sure that something of that feeling is not still retained. There is an exclusiveness about the nursing profession which prevents individuals who would make good nurses from going into it.
The hon. Member who opened the Debate said there was a considerable shortage of trained nurses, and I believe he was right. In that case we have not only to inquire into the difficulties of the nursing profession and to see where we can overcome them, such as the question of living-in or living-out and the conditions which exist in the service, but we have to get down to the problem of recruitment. When the hon. Member spoke of the various sources from which nurses could be recruited he seemed to put his finger on the place where the difficulty actually lay, but he did not, nor did the Committee in its interim report, deal


adequately with that aspect of the problem. I regularly meet secondary-school leavers, and hon. Members can take it from me that the nursing profession is not one of their first choices. I am not blaming the girls for that. The nursing profession is, perhaps, third on the list. When the girls have failed to obtain admission into one or two other professions or branches of industry they are prepared to consider nursing, almost as a last resort. They are then at an age when they can go as probationers, at only 17 years of age. If the leeway is to be made up and the problem of recruiting is to be solved, the profession has not only to be made more attractive, but has to be made available for the elementary school child to enter.
What is the position at the present time? No father earning less than£4 a week can afford to allow his child at the age of leaving the elementary school to qualify for entrance into the nursing profession. There is a gap between 14 years of age, on leaving school, and the age at which a child can go as a probationer nurse, and that gap has to be bridged. There is a suggestion in the report for bridging the gap in the case of secondary schools from the age of 15 years, and the Committee also point out theoretically how other difficulties can be overcome. I am not speaking of the bridging of a theoretical gap but of practical methods of overcoming the economic difficulty between the age of 14, at which a girl leaves school now, and the age at which she can become a probationer.

Sir F. Fremantle: The matter is dealt with very thoroughly in the report.

Mr. Tomlinson: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the reference. I am speaking of bridging a gap which, in my experience, I know to exist in the case of children from elementary schools who are desirous of entering the nursing profession. I remember that, when we were appointing helpers in our nursery school in my district, it was suggested that, after being there for two years, they would make excellent probationers for our hospitals. That was one way in which this gap could be filled, and in every case when these children who were taken into that nursery school as helpers reached the age at which they

could become probationer nurses they were ready and willing to do so.
To make it easier for the child from the elementary school to pass forward into this circle, the Minister of Health will have to take as much interest in the development of the nurse as the Board of Education takes in the development of children who are to become teachers. That will mean an alteration in the code, and the Minister will have to insist, also, on some assistance being given to these children. Why should not a child of 14 plus from an elementary school be given a bursary which would designate the child for the service which the State requires? From my own experience I feel certain that there would be a great many applicants for a bursary of that kind. Then the training could be continuous, and the difficulty would not arise of the children having to answer the silly questions read out by the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddell). I think he must have picked out the simplest of them for fear of going wrong. His reading of those questions gave us a clue to one difficulty with which the child of the working man is faced. After the initial difficulty of the interim period has been got over, and the applicant seeks admission to the profession at the age of 18, the question of passing the preliminary test arises, and I understand that for that a fee of£2 is required. It may be that, as the hon. Member for London University suggested,£2 is a small sum for entrance into a noble profession, but£2 when you have not got it is a very considerable item, and£2 stands between many an individual who is seeking to acquire something and the acquisition of it. All those things which have been spoken of as essential for a nurse are just the things for which the elementary school child in the main is well adapted.
No one has suggested in this Debate, although the hon. Member for London University inferred it, that we want an uneducated nursing profession. I realise that other things are necessary, although I hesitate to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) when he suggested that it was a calling, and that, no matter how much education you had, unless you had a call for it you did not make a good nurse. The idea of a call is always mixed up with economics, and we forget that at our peril.


The Seconder of the Amendment pointed out that in times of depression the number of applicants for the nursing profession increased, but that is also true with regard to curates. People go into those professions which are least desirable or remunerative when other avenues are not available. It is, however, for the child of the working man for whom I want to plead. Opportunities should be afforded of developing the child's latent talents.
I hesitate to go into the question of assistant nurses. I think that at any rate all the married men Members of this House are in that category. I look upon myself as an unregistered assistant nurse, and when the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) was insisting on the necessity for some education, particularly in arithmetic, in order that the prescriptions of doctors could be read, it seemed to me that what was needed was not so much lessons in arithmetic as some sort of C.I.D. training in decoding, which would certainly be much nearer the mark, judging from the doctors' prescriptions that I have had the privilege of attempting to understand. In my judgment it is the child from the working-class home who will be best able to meet what is required for the building up of this profession. The reason why applicants are not coming forward is just that, economically, they cannot afford to do so. We must not only improve the present conditions, but, above all, we must make it easier for such children to pass on. The problem will not be solved by the recruitment of secondary school children. Unless either all children are given a secondary school education, so that they can pass automatically into this profession, or it is made possible for the elementary school child, the nursing profession will be faced with a great need for recruits and will not know where to get them.

6.52 p.m.

Captain Elliston: We are very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), not only for opening a very interesting Debate, but also for testing the feeling of the House on a number of points which have been considered by the Departmental Committee. It has been asked why we should be discussing this interim report rather than wait for the final report, so that we could deal with the problems all together. Personally I think it is a great

advantage that opinions should be expressed here to-day which will indicate to the Committee the points of view held in this House and the difficulties that might delay any necessary legislation. The subject has been very well covered in the Debate, but I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). I agree with him that this is almost entirely an economic question. We have to recognise that recruitment for the nursing service has broken down. We want 20,000 probationers a year, including at least 12,000 for the great voluntary hospitals. It is notorious that the hospitals are at their wits' end to get applicants for these vacant posts. The report states that in the Official Journal of the College of Nursing, where most of these vacancies are advertised, the number of such advertisements increased from 6,400 in 1934 to 17,000 odd in 1937. That indicates that advertisements have to be inserted again and again, at great expense, and that applications for these posts are not being obtained.
We have to admit that the old idea of nursing as a vocation, almost a religious vocation, calling for nothing more than nominal payment, has gone. Parents today look for a profession for their daughters where the pay and conditions of service offer a reasonable chance of security in a pleasant occupation. Yet, as we know, many senior nurses in our great hospitals are still less well paid than domestic servants. Even highly qualified and experienced ward sisters can rarely expect to draw a salary of£120 a year—a salary less than many Members of this House pay to their cooks. That is not good enough to-day for parents who wish to launch their daughters on a useful career. I am not going to repeat what has already been said on such matters as discipline, holidays, recreation and accommodation. All these are very important, but I shall concentrate on certain fundamental matters in which I believe the solution of the problem lies.
First and foremost, if we are to implement this report and achieve any result at all, we have to recognise that adequate salaries must be paid, so that nursing shall offer opportunities comparable with the other occupations which now attract educated women. It may be that the teachers' scale will be taken as an


example, or that of some other profession where it is thought comparable, but in this campaign the question of adequate salaries is fundamental. That will mean the establishment of some such committee as the Burnham Committee, which solved the difficulties and removed the friction in the teaching profession after the War. That subject is dealt with fully in the report. I hope that the Minister will tell us to-day that we can rely on the formation of separate committees or sub-committees for the specialist services. In the public health service for health visiting, school nursing, tuberculosis and so on, we have upwards of 7,500 nurses, and their conditions of living outside, their working hours, and so on are so different from those of the hospital nurse that obviously a separate committee is required for them. The success of a committee of this kind has been proved in the Conciliation Committee which was constituted by the Mental Hospitals Association and the Mental Hospital Workers' Union about 20 years ago. That Conciliation Committee has solved a great many difficulties, has removed a great deal of friction, and has worked fairly to all concerned without any undue embarrassment to the local authorities responsible for mental hospitals.
The next essential requirement to which I desire to refer is the adoption of standard hours of employment. That matter has been discussed at length, and I think there is general agreement that we should aim at a 96-hour fortnight for all nurses. The majority of the Members of the Committee believe that that cannot be made the subject of legislation. I do not know whether it was in their mind that it would put an unreasonable strain on the hospitals—the voluntary hospitals especially.—or whether they wished to emphasise the point that the nursing service is really an emergency service, and that the nurse cannot be bound by a rigid timetable, which might mean leaving her patient at a critical time. But, if the Committee were thinking of the 96-hour fortnight as a whole, I cannot agree with them that it can be brought about without legislation. No doubt it would be adopted by a great number of municipal and voluntary hospitals at once, and it would not be unreasonable to expect others to fall into line if the "appointed day" was fixed for three or four years

ahead, thus giving enough time for the necessary adjustments.
The third essential requirement is that nursing must be made a pensionable service. At present the pension schemes are incomplete. It has been explained that voluntary hospital nurses are covered by the hospital nurses federated scheme, and that municipal nurses depend on the Local Government Superannuation Act. It was suggested that municipal hospitals should surrender their superannuation scheme and join up with the federated hospitals. I am not competent to discuss the merits of the federated scheme, but there are 50,000 nurses employed in municipal hospitals and the total number in voluntary hospitals is only 24,000. So that to suggest that the municipal superannuation should give way to the federated scheme looks rather like the tail wagging the dog. Those who have studied the interim report have seen with great satisfaction that the Government actuary, in Appendix III, indicates that the linking up of the existing schemes is not impossible. I very much hope that the Departmental Committee, when they produce their final report, will expound that recommendation further for the guidance of the House and of the Minister.
Having secured these improvements that we are asking for—decent conditions of employment, decent salaries and proper pension schemes—what further steps are necessary to enrol 20,000 recruits a year? That is a very large number. Those who are most concerned about the officering of hospitals are, of course, desperately anxious to secure a supply of educated girls. They believe that, with improved salaries and conditions, they will get them in larger numbers than they are getting them now. But the total output of public, private and secondary schools is barely 40,000 girls per annum, and we want 20,000 for the nursing service. Now the public and secondary schools have to supply workers for commercial life and for the various professions, so that you cannot expect to get a sufficient number of recruits from that source. Obviously we have to look to the elementary schools for a very large percentage of the entrants. Unfortunately in these hard times—I know it very well as Member for a Lancashire Division—it is a necessity for very many working-class parents that their children should go


to work as early as possible so that they can make some contribution to the family budget. That is a great handicap to those girls who have any ambition to undertake nursing.
On the other hand, I know very many persons of small means in my constituency who make tremendous sacrifices to send their children to universities and technical schools and other places of higher education. Their self-denial in this connection is above praise. The hon. Member for Farnworth seemed to think it impossible at present for these parents to get assistance for their daughters by which to enter the nursing profession. My impression is that there is machinery at present by which children from elementary schools can obtain preliminary training for the nursing service. I have always understood that scholarships to local technical schools, with maintenance, were available to girls between 15 and 17 and those who have to go to work in order to earn money can put in part-time attendance at evening schools to prepare for the preliminary examination. It may be hoped that when we have made nursing an attractive profession, parents will take advantage of these courses and that a large body of recruits will be forthcoming.
The increase of salaries and of staffs, of course, means expenditure which few hospitals can face, but I feel that the parents of probationers, who are at present the best-paid people relatively in the nursing service, will be quite glad to pay something towards the cost of the training. I see no more reason why the State should pay to educate hospital nurses than doctors, dentists or architects. Indeed, the training hospitals will get considerable revenue from their pupils when the profession is made a safe one. In Ireland large fees are charged for training of pupils for nursing—in the case of one hospital 60 guineas, in others from£50 downwards. In that way the cost of training the girls may be met. The proposal in the report is that hospitals recognised as training centres should receive a State grant. The expense of increased salaries and necessary extension of residential quarters etc. would be assisted in the case of voluntary, but not in the case of municipal hospitals. If nursing is a national service, surely their extra expenses should be a national

charge. I can see no excuse for excluding local authorities from the grant offered to voluntary hospitals.
Finally I doubt whether those who have protested against a register of assistant nurses have read the report. It seems to me to be not only an advantage to the women themselves, and a protection to fully qualified nurses, but above all a protection to the public. The public want to know, when they send for a nurse, whether she is qualified or not, and the only way to do it is by having a register. But in compiling that register we should respect the wishes of the College of Nursing, and designate them assistants or invalid attendants or by some other title which would indicate to the public that they were not fully qualified, and which would prevent their improper employment by commercial nursing agencies. For this and other suggestions, the House is indebted to the Departmental Committee, whose admirable report has been received with such general acceptance.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I take a sort of paternal interest in this report, because it was during a visit to my constituency to open a new health clinic that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office announced his intention to appoint the Inter-Departmental Committee the result of whose labours is before us now. On the whole it is a report which will be thoroughly welcomed by the House and the country. Those of us who have been engaged in the administration of municipal hospitals since the Local Government Act of 1929 made the county councils responsible for the maintenance of those hospitals know how serious a problem this is. All our efforts to improve the conditions in hospitals are, at any rate, slowed up by inability to get a sufficient supply of trained nurses and, while it is true, as the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) said, that Middlesex have managed to steal a march on a good many of the rest of us, after all the fact that they have made their service so attractive is only accentuating the difficulty for other people. It is exceedingly necessary that there should be in this nursing service something in the nature of the Burnham system which shall secure an even spread of the available human material for the services throughout the


country. It may be a good thing for Middlesex that they axe taking nurses from Surrey and London, but it is no very great assistance to the authorities in Surrey and London when they find that their service is being so handicapped.
I want to emphasise the point made so graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) with regard to the problem of bridging the gap. Some five or six years ago I was a member of a sub-committee which prepared a scheme whereby we would offer to all girls leaving secondary schools in Surrey who desired to become nurses hostel accommodation and a bursary and the appropriate preliminary training to enable them to prepare themselves to become probationer nurses when they reached the appropriate age. We were faced with great difficulties. In the first place, as I understand it, those responsible in the nursing profession itself for the admission of recruits declined to accept any of that training as counting towards the examination. That is a very short-sighted policy. I know that the Departmental Committee have recognised that, but I want to emphasise it as really being one of the things that ought to be done away with at the very earliest possible moment. It is quite wrong to think that working-class and lower middle-class families, the kind of people who send their children to secondary schools—they are very much the same all over the country—the lower paid clerical workers, the higher paid artisans and small shopkeepers, can afford to see their daughters spending a year, 18 months or two years in a place like that and then being no further forward with regard to actual technical qualifications than they were at the beginning of the time. It makes a very poor competitive attraction when you compare it with what a girl can get as a shorthand typist, or in a similar occupation open to the same type of girl. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take such steps as are necessary to remove that handicap.
Then we were faced with this amazing thing, that even if the parents were willing to a sacrifice of that kind being made by their daughters, the Board of Education declined to give any grants towards educational institutions for the purpose. That is ridiculous. Such grants are given

for the training of teachers. That is a well-recognised way of preventing people getting out of the teaching profession when you have caught them young and treated them rough. To debar the local authority which is both an educational authority and a hospital authority from undertaking that work, by refusing grants, is completely wrong. I am sure such a scheme would be very advantageous to the girls. The idea was that while they were carrying on their scientific training and acquiring the necessary knowledge they would be allowed occasionally, once or twice a week for instance, to visit the local authorities' hospitals—just for observation purposes. I am not one of those who think you can usefully introduce such girls into the hospitals to do some of the work. My view is that at that age such of the work as they could be put to do would be, on the one hand, too heavy, and, on the other hand, too unattractive to be of any real assistance to them. But I hope the Minister will take such steps as art-possible to bridge this gap.
I would reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth and by the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the elementary school girl. She has to have provision made for her for a longer time, and frequently she is a better wage-earning asset for the family than the secondary school girl. Unless some serious step is taken to meet the needs of this class of girls, they will drift off into other occupations—and I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) that after a girl goes into some other calling she is likely to come back into the nursing profession. She has, after all, forfeited years of seniority, and she may have got into some position of authority in the other profession, which she will have to sacrifice. Also she would have to start studying, and when she has been in some profession where study is not essential that would make demands upon her to which, I think, few girls would agree.
There is another matter which nobody has mentioned yet. I have no doubt I shall bring a great deal of trouble down on my head by alluding to it, but that has happened before, and my head is pretty well thatched. I think that a great deal of the problem—and I speak as one


who has had several years' experience in dealing with the problem—is due to the difficulty of finding suitable matrons. I have, on several occasions, had to take part in inquiries into difficulties that have arisen in institutions, and the attitude of a woman head, generally, is entirely different from that of a man head. Men have had generations of shouldering responsibility. Generally, if you go to an institution—I do not care whether it is a school or a hospital or a department of a municipal body—where there is trouble you go to the head of the department, and he expresses his regret that there has been trouble, accepts the responsibility, and says, "I will take steps to see that it is rectified." But usually when trouble occurs in the institution of which a woman is head, one of the junior staff is immediately produced as the appropriate victim. If there is a lady at the head—I am speaking from a very wide municipal experience— and if the lady is slightly over 50 years of age, the victim is usually the best-looking young woman on the staff. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Member for West Fulham, provocative as she was—and as she always is—and I hope to be allowed to develop this on my own lines. I am not the hon. Member's husband.
The hon. Member opposite said that some hon. Members here pay their cooks far more than nurses are paid. My cook gets the whole of my salary, and so do the cooks of most hon. Members on these benches. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham was right when she said that marriage ought not to terminate a nurse's career. I am sure that the difficulty of these ladies of rather more than middle age in positions of authority is very largely due to the fact that they are almost entirely spinsters. I cannot imagine any institution other than a monastery, entirely staffed by men, that would be adequately and appropriately staffed if the whole staff were bachelors, and I cannot believe that any institution, especially where there are relations of discipline between the members of the staff, is adequately and appropriately staffed if all the staff, especially those in positions of high authority, are spinsters. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in the negotiations he will have with various people over this report and its effect,

will realise the difficulties that now exist from a disciplinary point of view in those institutions which are entirely staffed by spinsters.
I had this experience the other day. A woman teacher came up for appointment at what she thought was a mixed school, under a headmaster. Between the time when the advertisement was issued and the time when the post had to be filled the school was divided into a boys' department and a girls' department. She was offered the post, but told that she would be on the girls' side, under the headmistress. Without waiting to see the headmistress, she said, "I desire to withdraw my application." I do not care what regulations the London County Council or any other county council draft; what matters is the way those regulations' are administered by the people in charge of an institution. It all depends on what happens from day to day in the interpretation of the regulations, and in making sure that they are made to fit human beings rather than human beings being made to fit the regulations. There can be no doubt that, from the point of view of the local authorities, the reforms advocated by the Departmental Committee are of vital urgency, and I believe they are also vitally urgent from the national point of view. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be debarred by any scruples about treading on people's toes from dealing drastically and speedily with the evils which the House has been considering to-day.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am fortunate in having in my constituency one of the important children's hospitals of London. This hospital, the South-Eastern Hospital for Children, has had two of its wards closed, purely owing to the shortage of nurses. I hope that the Inter-Departmental Committee, before it completes its valuable work, will take steps to obtain special evidence from the authorities of children's hospitals, because they have some distinctive problems of their own. The shortage of nurses has hit them doubly hard, because in old days, when the best general hospitals refused to admit probationers until the age of 20 or 21, it was a very common and sensible thing for girls wanting to take up nursing to go to a children's hospital at the age of 18 or 19 and gain experience there until they were of an age to enter adult wards. Now


the shortage of nurses has compelled the general hospitals to bring down their age of entry to 18, or even lower than that, and consequently the children's hospitals are starved of their former natural source of recruits. That is a most unhappy thing, because not only is children's nursing an art in itself, but also there can hardly be a better introduction to general nursing work for girls than experience in a children's hospital.
I am certain that not only this House but the whole country agrees with the Inter-Departmental Committee when it says that the conditions of the nursing service must be altered so as to render nursing a career which can compete on equal terms with the many other avenues of employment now open to women and so attract, in sufficient numbers, the type of girl best suited for this work. As soon as that is recognised and acted upon, headmistresses need no longer feel any qualms about urging girls to consider nursing as their career. Ought there not to be some body supplying first-class lectures and films on nursing to schools, to be augmented by much more frequent school visits to hospitals than at present? The most suitable hospital of all for that type of visit is surely the children's hospital.
Thousands of nurses and tens of thousands of patients will have cause to bless the House of Commons if this Debate results, as I hope and believe it will, in marking a new epoch in the English nursing service. Ever since the Florence Nightingale reforms, the advance of hospital practice has tended to throw more and more duties of a semi-scientific nature upon the nurse in addition to all the other things she has to learn in her training. At the other end, she has been relieved of not nearly an equivalent amount of the purely domestic and obvious work, besides which the tradition of endurance for endurance sake, or it may possibly be for economy's sake, is still very much alive. It was Florence Nightingale herself who said that "a good nurse of 20 years ago had not to do the twentieth part of what she is required by her physician or surgeon to do now"; and as that was said 45 years ago, what is the case to-day?
We look for a solution, and surely there is no other rational solution except the

deliberate training and certifying of different grades of nurses. The Inter-Departmental Committee seems to me to recommend the recognition of a grade of assistant nurses more or less as a regrettable necessity. I cannot help feeling that, if the analysis is pursued further, it will be seen as a logical development. In most hospitals division of functions still needs to be carried a long way. It is an important thing for a trained nurse to understand how to scrub a bed-mackintosh, but when a hospital first of all requires a high standard of education in its probationers, and then sets them for an hour and a half on end doing nothing else but scrubbing bed-mackintoshes, and then complains that there are so many things for the nurse to learn that she cannot properly be taught them all in the time available, and then finds that there is a shortage of entrants to the profession, it requires no very great shrewdness to see that, at whatever cost, the different qualities of work and the different qualities of recruits must be brought into relationship.
I wish that the Inter-Departmental Committee had taken the bull by the horns and recommended the immediate abolition of the test examination. To my certain knowledge that examination is now having the effect of turning away girls, whom the matrons by whom they are interviewed would be willing to take and train into good nurses. Like the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), I armed myself with some copies of test examination papers. I will not worry the House with them, but I fail to understand why a candidate for nursing should be asked. What place in the British Isles is famous for buttons? I do not know how many hon. Members could deal with the next question:—Who said, "Be angry with your little boy and beat him when he sneezes, for he can perfectly enjoy the pepper when he sneezes" If hon. Members were thinking of Lewis Carroll they were wrong; that is a misquotation from "Alice in Wonderland," and the examiners either set a trick question or failed to verify their reference. It is not on those grounds only that I argue for the abolition of the examination. It is not warranted by present circumstances, and the sooner it goes the better.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a lead towards the systematic inspection of training schools. I have no reason


to believe that that is done at the moment. In principle: that omission seems to me to be wrong. Nearly all hospitals are in the grip of this nursing shortage, and nearly all of them would welcome any suggestions based upon experience elsewhere, if only that would help them over their difficulties.
There has been very little reference this afternoon to the outstandingly valuable report of the "Lancet" Commission seven years ago. I will read one passage:
In some hospitals the nurse must also learn to subdue her critical impulses and even her curiosity. It is assumed that she will never make a good nurse unless she regards her time as the hospital's and not her own, and her training as incidental to the work she does as employé.… But in the process of acclimatisation she is liable to adopt blindly the traditions of her seniors … and to become as impervious as they are to the fact that the educational methods practised in hospitals have been largely superseded elsewhere by methods which rely on arousing, instead of damping, curiosity and initiative.
Of some hospitals I am afraid that continues to be very true.
I will not weary the House with further arguments on the point of petty disciplinary rules, but there is a hospital which must be known by name to every hon. Member of this House where a nurse is allowed to smoke only in her off-duty time in one particular room of the hospital. She is not allowed to smoke in uniform, and she is not allowed to go about the hospital in mufti unless she wears a hat. If she wants a cigarette, therefore, she has to go to her bedroom, change into mufti, put on her hat and go across to the smoking-room. In some ways it is almost reminiscent of the restrictions in the Palace of Westminster. In that hospital too, I believe, it is still the case that a nurse, when she comes off duty in the evening is not allowed to go out of the hospital for an hour or two between 8 and 10 o'clock without asking somebody's permission. That again comes home to hon. Members.
Can it be brought home to every hospital in the country that the nursing profession will not be recruiting worthy future leaders and administrators so long as the "Theirs not to reason why" attitude in face of their seniors is insisted upon, and so long as it is conceivable that any one can be told, as a friend of mine was told by a person distinguished in the nursing profession the other day, that until a girl's spirit was broken she was going to be no use to the hospital.
Whether the training of nurses should rightly be called a national service or not interests some members of the Inter-Departmental Committee more than it interests me. I see the thing quite simply. There is this acute nation-wide shortage of nurses. It has to be made up. That will cost, among other things, a certain amount of money. That money has to be found. The money side of it, as far as this House and the country are concerned, is consequential. No objection to this or that recommendation of the committee is valid, unless supported by some alternative suggestion for meeting the urgent and growing need. As hon. Members have insisted, there is no time to be lost. It is seven years since the "Lancet" Commission reported strongly about the need for interchangeability" of pensions, and we are still talking about that to-day. I hope action will follow very quickly.
I should like the Inter-Departmental Committee, when it has received back all the questionnaires which it has sent out, to consider making personal visits to those hospitals where the shortage of nurses is least felt, so that it may gather from them a pattern of what a hospital should be if it is successfully to attract nurses. I hope also that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider the suggestion that has already been made to commend to hospitals a draft set of model rules—he is familiar with the utility of model by-laws in other fields—for the regulation of nurses within the hospital. It was suggested by an hon. Member that the London County Council rules should be circulated; the Inter-Departmental Committee, when it has finished its inquiries may well be able to improve on the London County Council rules themselves.
Lastly, I wonder if the Minister would consider the case for a Standing Advisory Committee on the supply and training of nurses, to include responsible men and women with practical experience outside the nursing world, if the difficulties are of such magnitude that, as seems likely, the nursing profession cannot solve them unaided.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: We are indebted to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) for tabling an Amendment


which has given rise to such a very interesting and informative discussion. It comes by way of relief to some of the discussions we have had recently, and it brings us face to face with some very real and practical problems. Seldom has the House of Commons, with which I have had a fairly long association, been able to discuss a report which has met with such general consent from all sides of the House, and on which there is little or no dissention. There is the hope that everything will be done to implement it as soon as practicable. Therefore, for the first time in my life I am able to say that, on the whole, I am in full agreement with the hon. Member for St. Albans. The only point on which I would enter a small caveat against what he said was when he expressed the hope that something would be done to extend further domiciliary treatment. Whatever may be our wishes in regard to that, it occurs to me that more and more the desire is to use our hospitals, which are no longer confined to use by the poorer sections of the community. All sections of the community are now beginning to take advantage of the hospitals and to use them. The London County Council have already indicated that they want, as far as possible, to extend domiciliary treatment, particularly after first midwifery cases, but whatever may be our wishes in that direction, I am sure that the use of our hospitals is bound to expand.
In the report I have been struck by the fact that the members of the committee were rather afraid as to where their investigations were going to lead them. They realise quite clearly that the hospital services must become a national service, and although they are afraid to say so, they admit that, in effect in their report. There is a somewhat amusing comment in one of the reservations made, and that is that whilst putting forward an objection to the voluntary hospitals being helped out of national funds, they put in another reservation indicating that they wanted to modify the former reservation. I think the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and others have come down on the other side.
The fact is that more and more, in spite of any particular wishes, the nation is being pushed towards a State service so far as our hospitals are concerned. That fact is still further strengthened by

the increasing burdens that are being placed on local authorities, burdens that are becoming almost too grievous to be borne. The problem can, in fact, be solved only by the State recognising its obligations in regard to this service. In paragraphs 16 and 17 the report says:
We understand that the voluntary hospitals are prepared to receive assistance from public funds. It is clear that the acceptance of grants of this kind must also involve the acceptance of such measure of public control as may be necessary and appropriate. … Since the training of the nurse is a service performed for the country as a whole, we consider that grants in respect of such training should be made from national funds to hospitals recognised by the General Nursing Council as training schools.
There we have an admission of the principle that, sooner or later, we shall have to accept the suggestion of a State-controlled hospital service. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlin-son) drew attention to the gap between the school-leaving age and the age at which candidates are eligible for training. That may be met in some way by the recommendations of the report but there is still the difficulty in regard to the economic problem of the young person who is being called upon to undertake these duties, and who, for the time being, is not contributing to the family exchequer. Somehow or other means will have to be found, and they should not be insuperable, of overcoming that difficulty. I do not agree with the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) who inferred that probationers are trained wholly at the public expense. That is not quite accurate. In the second part of their training they give a considerable amount of work as assistants which pays to a large extent for part of their training. It is not accurate to suggest that they are entirely a liability in this respect.
The hon. Member spoke as if everything was well with the voluntary hospitals, and he gave a glowing account of his own hospital, St. Mary's. There are 1,333 voluntary hospitals, and much as one would like to feel that the hospital of which the hon. Member spoke represents the whole, we know that the facts are very far from that. We must also remember that there are 528 municipal hospitals and many of these, as the hon. Member for Anglesey said, are; under local authorities who have very limited funds at their disposal, and whose rateable


value is such that they would not be able to meet the cost that would be imposed upon them by carrying out fully the recommendations of the report. That brings us back once more to the fact that the State will have to shoulder a very much larger proportion of the financial burden than hitherto. The hon. Lady asked how many of the hospitals under the London County Council have adopted the 96-hour fortnight scheme. Three-fourths of them have done so, and the ultimate cost of the whole to the county council will be£125,000 a year. We have only to estimate what the burden will be in regard to the smaller municipalities to get some idea of the burden that will be imposed upon the local authorities if it is suggested that they should shoulder all or most of this liability.
I should like to make reference to the shortage of the supply of nurses. It is well to point out that the shortage does not arise because there is a falling off in the numbers coming forward compared with previous years. There has been an increased demand, and new services and different conditions have grown up. At one time it was thought that one could get a sufficient supply of nurses from young persons who went to it as a vocation, and as doing the Lord's work. It was thought that 5 they were doing the Lord's work they could be offered remuneration that would not be offered for any ordinary commercial service. That sort of thing has largely passed away, and it brings us face to face with other conditions. The reduced hours of work have made a difference. There is also the increase in the health services, and higher and improved standards of municipal services, especially in regard to Poor Law assistance. All these things have tended to bring about a shortage of supply. Then there is the increasing use of hospital services which has grown very considerably during the past few years.
The Committee have pointed out that if their recommendations are adopted in regard to meeting the shortage of nurses it will be something like five years before it will be possible to catch up to the supply that is necessary. We must take note, also, of another important factor, which was referred to by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). One sincerely hopes that it may never be required, but we cannot shut out from

our consideration the state of unrest and disturbance there is throughout the world which may bring about conditions which will call for a very large reinforcement of the nursing services, when we shall want a very much bigger supply than can possibly be foreshadowed. We should like the Minister to tell us to-night that the Government are prepared to go full speed ahead to implement the recommendations of the report. Apart altogether from the normal circumstances of hospital treatment, we have to bear in mind the possible contingency, which we hope will not be realised, which calls for greater haste than would otherwise be necessary.
With regard to filling up the gaps and getting the necessary supply of nurses, there is in paragraph 52 of the report the suggestion that some central organisation or authority should be able to tell those who are applying exactly where there is a shortage of nurses, where there are vacancies and where the hospitals are fully equipped. That would reduce the disappointment that may come to those people who may apply and find there is no opening for them, and therefore lose heart. It is well to note, having regard to present day circumstances, that among the hospitals that are adopting the recommendations of the report are the Jewish hospitals in Manchester.
The sub-committee of the National Advisory Committee to the Nursing Profession wish to stress certain points. In regard to finance they suggest that all hospitals should become public institutions and should receive Government grant to meet increased expenditure but the grant should be withheld from those employing authorities that fail to observe the recognised scales and conditions of service for their nursing staffs. When it is put that way one has to recognise that these things cannot be done all at once, but they should give an undertaking of their intention as soon as practicable to fulfil the conditions laid down. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea when we may expect that the extra cost will be met by national grants, if not the whole, at any rate a large proportion of it, so as to make it possible for the hospital authorities, voluntary and otherwise, to go forward as soon as possible.
The question as to the establishment of a Burnham or Whitley Council for the


hospital service is of first-class importance. I speak with some knowledge of somewhat analogous conditions. For many years it was my privilege to be in the Post Office service. In those days the House was troubled every year by long Debates, taking a whole day or several days, Members were lobbied, and a campaign was carried on by Post Office servants in regard to their grievances, whether financial or general conditions of service. A way out was found by the establishment of a Whitley Council. Since then there has been very little question raised on the Floor of the House as far as the conditions of employment and the remuneration of Post Office servants, because representatives of both sides are on the Whitley Council and are able to meet in discussion round the table, and there is arbitration machinery to decide particular points. If this could be done in regard to the nursing profession it would go a long way to improve the conditions. I hope the Minister will be able to hold out some hope that machinery of this description will be inaugurated, so that the nurses can feel that there is none to make them afraid and that their problems will be fairly and freely discussed. It is equally of importance that the 96-hour fortnight should be established as soon as possible. There is a reservation on that problem in the report:
We are of opinion that only by legislation will it be possible to ensure that a 96-hour working fortnight can be carried on in all hospitals at a reasonably early date.
It is no good leaving this question to the hospitals to carry out when they think the time is ripe. It must be a statutory obligation laid upon them, and I hope the Government will not shrink from facing the question as soon as possible.
Then something also should be done in regard to superannuation. I know the difficulty which arises because some nurses are under public control and some under voluntary organisations, but it ought not to be beyond the ingenuity of the Department to devise a scheme whereby there could be a carryover or transfer of nurses from one service to another with their pension rights in full. If that is done, then one of the great difficulties in getting the number of recruits which are required will be removed. They are practical proposals which are put before us by the Committee.

The fact that a committee of experts of all shades of opinion has given us so progressive a report is a matter for comfort and cheer, and certainly the Government ought not to fall behind in implementing it to the fullest. I know that it will take a very long time before its effects will be fully appreciated and felt throughout the service, even when the report is implemented, but the very fact that it will be known that attention is being given to this matter will do a great deal to ensure a larger flow of recruits to the service. I hope the report will not suffer the fate of so many Departmental reports which have been received, discussed, debated, pigeonholed and forgotten. Now that the Government are aware of the sense of the House, I hope they will implement it at the earliest possible moment.

8.4 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: We have had a very full and interesting Debate on this extremely interesting report, and I do not wish, except for a very short time, to stand between the House and the reply of the Minister. I should like to make a reference to something which was said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I thought he made an admirable speech until he came to the end when he made some stringent remarks regarding matrons.

Mr. Ede: Out of bitter experience.

Sir J. Lamb: I cannot deny the hon. Member's bitter and varied experience, but I hope he will realise that his remarks should not be made too general. There are exceptions I know, but I do not think the exceptions justify the references which he made to matrons in general. They are not here to answer for themselves, and therefore I should like to say a word in their defence. I do not think many people realise the difficulties with which they have to deal or what wonderful results they achieve sometimes in very difficult circumstances.
I should like the Minister of Health to tell us when he anticipates to receive the final report of the committee. I am aware that I cannot ask him to foreshadow the legislation which may be introduced, but I would like to point out that if he is going to wait until the final report is received before legislation is brought in, it will be a disaster. At the


present time there are many local authorities who are willing and desirous to make alterations where they can be made in the nursing service, but they are waiting, quite naturally, for the Minister to give them a lead as to what they can and what they should do. If he can tell us when he is likely to receive the report and take some action upon it, it will be a very great advantage to the municipalities and to the service itself.
In speaking of the nursing service there is a danger sometimes of speaking too generally. Nurses vary considerably in their qualifications. Some are highly trained, and probably most patients would be quite safe in their care without the attention of a medical man. Some of them with their first-class experience are capable of giving equal attention to that which can be given by a medical man. But there are others who, although they may be termed nurses, are not in that category. They are highly qualified for the work which they may be called upon to do. There are some patients who do not require medical attention; they require attention which is of a purely nursing kind. I think it should be possible for some means to be devised whereby they can be registered without giving cause of complaint to those who are highly qualified that they are being injured in any way.
With regard to salaries, I believe the difficulty does not arise in the case of salaries paid to probationer nurses. The difficulty is that there is no prospect of their getting a salary comparable to the salary in another occupation later on. It is in that sphere that we can look for an increase in nursing. The question of hours is one of great difficulty. Long hours are not sought by anyone, but it is impossible for local authorities to decrease the number of hours unless there is an addition to the staff. The patients are there and have to be nursed. The great increase in the demand for nursing services has been partly due to the advance in our social services. They have been so rapid and extensive that the average person does not realise what they mean. I should like to have referred to many other interesting topics in the report, but as there are many other hon. Members who desire to take part in the Debate, I do not propose to say any more at the present.

8.11 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), to whom we are indebted for the occasion of this Debate by reason of his good fortune in the Ballot, has once before drawn our attention to this subject, and as he is part author of the report which has been received with such universal praise this evening, he is entitled to felicitations as author as well as debater. There have been apart from the "Lancet" report to which hon. Members have referred, three reports on nursing services—the Athlone Report for England and Wales and the Black and Alness Reports for Scotland. To-night we are reviewing the whole of the nursing services for the United Kingdom, and these reports have to be considered. It is true that certain matters are reserved by the Athlone Committee for further consideration, but these reports cover the large ground of recruitment and conditions of service, including pay and hours of work. Here I would say in answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) that we do not intend to defer all action until a final report has been delivered. I cannot say when it will be delivered, but the committee was specially asked to make an interim report so that its findings could be available for action if it were found possible to act upon it. All the three reports to which I have referred stress the importance of the nursing profession and its special value to the community. It is unnecessary, therefore, to stress that value to-night.
But the reports also mention that the nurse is not only a ministering angel but one whose devotion to duty should be adequately rewarded as regards not only remuneration, but in respect of conditions of service also. I may say on behalf of the Government that we accept these general conclusions. We recognise the high value of the nursing profession to the nation and the importance of all suggestions in these reports, calculated as they are to improve the position of nurses. We recognise that, as many hon. Members-have already said, the demand for hospital accommodation is growing throughout the country and has not yet by any means reached the end of its growth. That is a social factor in the situation of great importance; people are more ready, indeed more anxious, than


they were to take advantage of hospital facilities. Let me give one interesting fact. At least 30 per cent. of the notifiable births in this country last year took place in institutions, a figure which is an increase of 10 to 15 per cent. in the last 10 years. That is only one of many figures I could give to show the increasing advantage which is being taken of hospital facilities.
Furthermore, the growth of medical science in recent years has meant that facilities have become far more numerous. New services of many kinds are now finding their place in our hospitals and are rapidly developing. All this has increased the demand for nurses, and has increased the demand out of proportion to the actual increase of beds, considerable though that increase is. Better service is being demanded, and specialised services are coming very rapidly into being. To take one example, orthopaedics, which all members of the medical profession will recognise as of especial importance in these days. We are on the eve of a great development in the treatment of fractures, and we are eagerly awaiting the report of a committee on fractures. Clearly, no service can be more useful to the nation than the rehabilitation of those suffering from fracture injuries, and no service requires more specially skilled nursing attention. We have to recruit and train now those who will subsequently find their employment in the fracture clinics which no doubt will be set up in future.
I would like to repeat—because it is very desirable to make it clear—what many hon. Members have already stressed, namely, that the shortage of nurses is not due to a weakening of the fibre of the nation, to a shirking by the women of the nation of these arduous and responsible jobs. I want to repeat what has been said by one or two hon. Members—for it is worth while stressing it— that the shortage arises from the increased demand, and not from any falling off in the numbers of entrants to the profession. Figures were given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans and by other hon. Members. In England and Wales the numbers who took the final State examination—not the preliminary examination but those who continued right through to the end—rose from 5,275 in 1927 to 9,516 in 1937. In Scotland, although the increase was not so striking,

the number of nurses registered in 1928 in that country was 800, and in 1937, it was 1,092. Therefore, it is fair to say that, roughly, the number of nurses qualifying in Great Britain has risen in ten years from 6,000 to 10,000. It is interesting to note that the increase was greater in England, where admittedly employment was better, than in Scotland, where not so many competitive occupations were available.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is it not the case that very often girls coming from the distressed areas, such as South Wales, are trained as nurses in England, so that the figures relating to them are locked up in the English figures?

Mr. Elliot: The whole of South Wales and the North Country come into the English figures.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman referred to England.

Mr. Elliot: I most specifically said that my figures related to England and Wales. There has been a very considerable increase in the number of nurses qualifying, and I think it is fair to point out, for the honour of our country, that the present shortage of nurses is not primarily due to slackness, or to the fear of hard work, or to the drag of better-paid occupations. The demand for nurses is increasing at a very rapid rate, a rate which is more rapid than the increase in the supply. The fact is that the increase in supply has not been sufficient to meet the increase in demand. We have to consider the recommendations which these committees have made towards increasing the supply. Those recommendations are presented as measures to meet an urgent situation in the ordinary peace-time nursing service of the nation. Before I conclude my remarks, I shall refer to the war danger, which several hon. Members have mentioned, and the great need which will arise for a very great increase in the nursing strength of the nation if war should come.
It is true that present methods of recruitment are ill-fitted to the educational system of the country. Reference has been made to an unfortunate gap which exists between the school-leaving age and the age of entry into the hospitals. The Board of Education and the Scottish Education Department are very sympathetically considering how best to organise


arrangements which will provide the most suitable forms of preliminary training both for ex-elementary and ex-secondary school-girls. It would be wrong to say that the hospitals are staffed entirely by ex-secondary school-girls, for even to-day over 50 per cent. of the London County Council nurses are not ex-secondary school-girls. These arrangements would fit in with the proposed division of the preliminary State examination into two parts. Special courses have been provided, and these will make the division of the examination applicable. The General Nursing Council have submitted a rule to me to enable this "splitting" of the examination to take place, and as soon as certain details have been settled I propose to approve the rule. The "splitting" has already been effected in Scotland, so that it is not necessary to do anything there.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) and other hon. Members suggested that special bursaries earmarking children for future entry into the nursing profession should be given on leaving the elementary schools. The Committee examined that suggestion and most definitely recommended, in paragraph 48 of their report, that it would be unwise to attempt to reverse the trend of educational policy by establishing special scholarships earmarking children for this special employment until at least the remedy had been tried of making the employment in itself more attractive. The committee said that there should not be an attempt to get "tied" scholars who would go forward to nursing, and that employment only. Certainly, I think that the improvement of the conditions of the nursing profession is the first line of advance we should undertake.
A great many hon. Members, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby), who seconded the Amendment, spoke of the registration of assistant nurses. I think it is clear, from the argument that has taken place in the course of the Debate that this is a contentious subject—in fact, so contentious that the Athlone and Alness Committees, after a full examination of the problem, came to opposite conclusions. The Alness Committee recommended against the initiation of a roll for assistant nurses, and the Athlone Committee were in favour of it. This

is a question on which both the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are desirous to gather opinion. We will pay the greatest attention to the opinions expressed. But it is clear that further consideration and indeed consultation are desirable before any definite steps are taken. In any case, if registration of assistant nurses were determined upon, legislation would be necessary, so that it would be out of order for me to pursue the subject further now.
A great many hon. Members have referred to the conditions of service of nurses. I think we should agree with the Athlone Committee that many of the accusations are exaggerated. Mention has been made in the Debate of what would appear to be unreasonable conditions, and the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) and other hon. Members gave instances which were within their own personal knowledge. I do not think anyone would deny that there is still scope for improvement, but let it be remembered that, in spite of those conditions, recruitment has gone up 50 per cent. in 10 years, which is a sign that, in general, conditions are not such as to deter those who are genuinely anxious for employment in this calling. I think there is a great deal to be said on the credit side. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) referred to the fact that many authorities have instituted the 96-hour fortnight. As to what one might call the housing conditions of nurses, there have been great improvements, as many hon. Members know from their experience. I looked to see whether I could find any figure which would indicate that. The only figure I could find was that relating to loans specifically sanctioned for nurses' homes, that is, loans which local authorities had been authorised to raise solely for the provision of new accommodation for nurses.
That figure, of course, leaves out all the great improvements in conditions in the voluntary hospitals. It also leaves out improvements in conditions which have been made as part of wider schemes. Yet that figure alone shows that progress went on in the last five years at more than twice the rate in the preceding five years. Between 1931 and 1935, new accommodation to the extent of 1,170 beds was provided for nurses. Between 1935 and 1939, 2,675 beds were provided in new and up-to-date accommodation.
That is only a rough figure indicative of the great improvement in conditions which is going on all over the country. To illustrate the great efforts of the voluntary hospitals to improve the conditions under which the nurses live, I need go no further than the Westminster Hospital, which is opening a great extension this very week within a few hundred yards from this House. There, undoubtedly, the nurses' home represents a very great advance on the conditions under which the nurses were living previously, and, indeed, represents almost model accommodation for nurses, or indeed for any class of the community at work in London to-day.
There are, however, further steps which need to be taken. We are prepared to accept the view expressed by the Athlone and Alness Committees that the conditions of service of nurses so far as they affect discipline, leave, amenities, and so forth, should be based
on the conception of a nurse as a reasonable adult, anxious to live up to the high traditions of service for which the nursing profession in this country is justly famous
I was asked by several speakers whether I would bring that recommendation in some way to the notice of the hospital authorities. I am willing to undertake, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, to issue a circular to local authorities, not in the form of a model set of rules which, I think, would be a rather meticulous sort of recommendation to bring to their notice, but a circular on the numerous administrative recommendations contained in the reports. I propose to ask the British Hospitals Association whether they would be willing to issue a circular in similar terms to the voluntary hospitals. In this way these important recommendations would be specifically brought to the notice of the governing body of every hospital, whether local authority or voluntary, throughout the land.
I was also asked to state the Government's attitude on the suggestion that some procedure of the nature of Whitley Council procedure should be established as regards nurses, between employers and employed. I can tell the House that the question of establishing Whitley Council procedure for nurses, to discuss conditions, is under consideration by the Ministry of Labour, and if the Ministry decides

in favour of such a step, it will certainly take the initiative in giving it effect. Some procedure by which these matters can be considered, and indeed decided, apart from these commissions of inquiry, is most obviously desirable.
Questions of finance were naturally very much in the minds of hon. Members because many of the recommendations in these two reports involve finance. There, again, there is a divergence between the committees. The Athlone Committee recommends the setting up of Burnham Committees to explore the question of salaries. The Alness Committee find themselves able to go further. They make their own recommendations in specific terms on this subject. It would clearly be inappropriate for me to make any pronouncement now, but I am hopeful that it will be possible to say more about this problem at a reasonably early date, and I do not think the House will expect me on this occasion to go further than that. I think it desirable, however, to say something on an aspect of the nursing service which has been touched on by one or two hon. Members—

Sir F. Fremantle: On what kind of occasion is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be able to deal with that point which he has just mentioned? Will it be in connection with the Budget, or on the Ministry for Health Estimates?

Mr. Elliot: I would not like to say on what kind of an occasion it will be, but I would not attempt to shirk the matter, as soon as it is possible to make a statement I hope to do so, perhaps in answer to a question. The important thing from the point of view of the House is that a Government statement will be made on the matter.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of when it will be made? Will it be in the near future?

Mr. Elliot: I have said that it will be made at a reasonably early date, and it is impossible for me to go further than that at the present time. I want to speak for a little time about the effect on these matters of the danger of war. We have already dealt with the peace-time aspect of this question, but there is another and a very important aspect of it which none of us can ignore at the present time. I have already explained in the House and elsewhere the general plan of hospital bed


expansion which will be brought into operation if war should happen to break out. The round figures, which have been given to the House more than once, are that 200,000 beds will be available in the first 24 hours. These are to be beds in existing hospitals for which nursing staff is for the most part already provided. But there will be 100,000 additional beds to be placed in existing hospitals and so forth, for which staff is not at present provided. To supplement those beds, we are arranging for a programme of hutted annexes attached to existing hospitals, etc. The first block of these hutted annexes has been arranged for already. It is a block of 26,000 beds—20,000 for England and Wales and 6,000 for Scotland— and 20 local authorities have already given consent to the use of the land surrounding their institutions. Surveys of the land are in progress and the lay-out of these annexes has been decided.
As I said in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Civil Defence Bill, this block of 26,000 beds is only a first step, and we are already working out the next stage in the programme with a view to putting it into effect at once. Even, however, taking these 26,000 beds, the House will see that the total number of beds in sight for which staff will have to be provided is something like 120,000. At the rate of one nurse to three patients, which is the usual formula, the staff required for this programme alone, is 40,000 nurses and nursing auxiliaries, and, as I have said, we are already working out further stages of the programme. Nor does that exhaust the need. Other aspects than the hospital aspect are indispensable, and indeed vital. Nurses and auxiliaries are needed for first-aid posts, for helping the health visitors and the district nurses and for helping to look after those millions of children and others who will be evacuated from the congested areas into the reception areas.
We are, therefore, asking, for the nursing and nursing auxiliary services, for 100,000 women now. We ask for 100,000 volunteers from Britain, and we ask for them to-day. We ask for them not only from the towns but from the country places wherever a few people can gather together for training. We ask for them not only from the country places but from large organised units of industry such as the big shops and stores. We want those units to give facilities to their staffs for

training. The House knows that local authorities have the power to incur any reasonable expenditure on such training. No expense need fall upon the recruit. The cost of training for the hospital service will, of course, be paid for entirely by the Government.
I wanted to give this word of explanation to the House, because I rely on hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House, belonging to all parties, to assist in the effort which we are asking the nation to put forward. The national organisations through which training can be given are the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the St. Andrew's Ambulance Association, the British Red Cross Society, and the Women's Voluntary Service organisation. These are all set out in the National Service Handbook. Furthermore, we have the Central Emergency Nursing Committees for the Nursing Profession—one in England and Wales and another in Scotland. Locally we have the medical officers of health of the counties and county boroughs (counties and large burghs in Scotland), to whom application can also be made, and in a large number of areas local Emergency Committees have been established to assist them. I should also appeal to retired trained nurses to continue to come forward and register their names with the Central Emergency Committees, either through existing organisations such as the College of Nursing, with whom they have been accustomed to work in the past, or with one of the other organisations named.
This is of course the women's own service. We have already a substantial recruitment towards our needs. By arrangement with the War Office, to which I should like to pay a tribute for their most helpful attitude throughout, we have available the services of some 11,000 St. John's and St. Andrew's and Red Cross enrolled and trained personnel. We have some 12,000 women enrolled with the Central Emergency Committee, some 5,000 of them fully trained nurses, enrolled for the most part through the College of Nursing, and some 7,000 untrained enrolled through these other various organisations I have mentioned. These 7,000 young women are now beginning or carrying through their training, or in some cases have completed it, by means of those various bodies, and are working to a single unified scheme for


qualification as nursing auxiliaries. But we shall require many more yet, and we appeal to the women to see that they are forthcoming. I wish to take this opportunity of appealing to my colleages in the House to do their utmost to help us in making this appeal. There is no need more important, and there is none that ought to make a more personal appeal to all of us.
I think I have dealt with most of the points which were raised in the Debate. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) mentioned the need for the protection of the staffs of the hospitals, and I should like to make it clear that the Government's scheme applies to protection for the staffs as well as for patients. The Government's scheme, under which all the expenditure of a voluntary hospital over£1 per bed will be borne by the State, and all the expenditure of a local authority in excess of a rate of a tenth of a penny, applies to expenditure on general measures of protection at hospitals. That is the answer to the question why protection is not compulsory in the case of staffs of hospitals as it is in the case of staffs of industrial organisations.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well, in winding up the Debate, congratulated the House on the spirit of unity which we have been able to achieve during this Debate. I think he was right to congratulate the House and he was able to do so because of the nature of the subject which we have been discussing. This short review has shown us the medical profession as consisting not only of the doctors, but also of the nurses— an indispensable part, the other half, one might say, of the profession of medicine, taken in its widest aspect. None of us will quarrel as to which of us is to be placed in one class and which in the other. As the poet said: "One man in his time plays many parts," and this was no doubt in the minds of hon. Members opposite who claimed their right to be enrolled at least as assistant nurses, though they could not qualify on the State register as fully trained nurses. This is a calling which, not merely in war but in peace, is literally vital. Its interest and variety increase every day, and so does the demand for skill, which is becoming more and more indispensable. It offers a career which we hope will be in the future

more adequately recognised, both in its conditions and in its rewards. It is true also that it is a vocation as well as an employment, and that it offers a career which already has achieved one of the touchstones of greatness; the knowledge that she who undertakes it can truly claim to be the servant of all.

Mr. Liddall: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask whether he has referred to any of the points raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln? If he did, I must apologise for not being in the House, but nature demanded that I should go and have some refreshment.

Mr. Elliot: Unfortunately, nature seems to have simultaneously put it in the heads of both of us to go and have some refreshment, and I am afraid that I was out of the House when the hon. Member was speaking. I think the points which he raised have been dealt with, but if not, I will read his speech with close interest, and if there are any points that have not been dealt with in my remarks, I will write to him in regard to them.

Mr. Liddall: That is not quite satisfactory to me. I should like—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member cannot make two speeches.

Mr. Liddall: On a point of Order. I merely asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman, and not being satisfied with the reply I ventured to put a further question, which might have been termed a supplementary question. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the point that I raised in regard to women of a higher age than 30 being permitted to sit for a probationer's examination has been brought to his notice?

Mr. Elliot: Yes; there were several points raised by the hon. Member as to the whole system of examinations. His speech, as reported to me, dealt with the system of examinations. I was not able to answer it at the time, but I think it will be suitably dealt with by the procedure which I have suggested, namely, that I will write to him at length, a personal letter, on the matter, and if he cares, I shall be glad to meet him and discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Liddall: Thank you,

Sir F. Fremantle: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

UNEMPLOYMENT.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I should have liked the procedure of the House to have enabled me definitely to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name on the subject of unemployment. However, that not being allowed, I must be content with initiating a discussion to bring to the Minister's mind, and to the mind of the Government, the opinion of the great majority of Members on this side with regard to the necessity of an inquiry into the question of unemployment. I want to say at the outset that I do not intend to deal very much with the question from a destructive, critical point of view. I think the Minister of Labour, at Question Time and in many Debates in the past, has had sufficient of that destructive criticism to make him fully aware of the feelings of Members on this side of the House. But even in these days of grave international crisis and of a foreign policy that certainly does reflect itself in the domestic conditions of the people of this country, I think the House of Commons should grasp every opportunity of dealing with a very difficult and grave problem that exists within our own bounds, namely, the problem of unemployment.
Therefore, I make no apology for introducing this subject and for placing before the House, and the Government in particular, our opinion that in view of the continuance of a huge number of unemployed without any appreciable reduction and of the lack of a betterment in the conditions of the unemployed, this is a question that demands a full inquiry. I believe that if I had been permitted to move my Amendment it would have been accepted by the majority of the House as a sensible proposal. We ask the Government to institute a full inquiry In order that the increased productive capacity of this country may be placed at the disposal, of the great majority of the community and thus assist to solve this problem. We can approach this question on very definite assumptions. We know that we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and that

for many years we have had an unemployed army. Whether it be a constant or a fluctuating army, the same sense of insecurity is present in the minds of the great mass of the workers that they may be working one week and unemployed another. This great army has for many years ranged from 1,700,000 to 2,000,000. The majority of Members of the House believe that the problem can be solved and that the present methods adopted by the Government are not materially reducing the size of the army or in any way assisting the conditions of the unemployed and their dependants.
Governments of the past and the present Government have failed to take the necessary action and to formulate schemes whereby the productive capacity of the country could be used to absorb the unemployed even at the expense of reduced profits. Patriotism goes a good deal further than many Members have expressed during recent crises. There are those who believe that one can be patriotic to the country and believe in it much more if the country gives to its people a decent standard of life. There is a patriotism which not only desires to protect our liberty and freedom, but desires to use that liberty and freedom to give, by Government action, to the mass of the people the best possible conditions. It cannot be denied that the Government and the present Minister of Labour have not formulated a scheme which will give to the unemployed reasonable opportunities of living a decent and comfortable life. I have just listened to the Minister of Health referring to the question of nurses as of national importance and as a question practically of National Defence. It is no use the Minister saying that our allowances to the unemployed are higher than those in any other country, for they are still meagre, and it is undeniable that the unemployed man and his dependants cannot live on a decent scale with such allowances. If this army of unemployed are left poor and distressed we cannot expect them to have any great regard for the defence of a system which gives them nothing but poverty and depression.
Even from the Government's own selfish point of view it is necessary that the unemployed should believe that the House of Commons, which is asking them to give National Service, is also prepared


to institute a full inquiry into their conditions on the basis of my Amendment, with a view to giving them the best conditions possible. Realising that this is a problem which can be solved and which has not been materially assisted by the schemes of the Government, I want to ask the Government to agree to set up this inquiry. The Minister of Labour may say that we have had inquiries in the past, as the Prime Minister has said, with regard to many other questions. He may say we have had an inquiry into the catering industry and into this, that and the other industry. But these inquiries have proved futile. They may have assisted one part of the unemployment problem, but the problem has grown worse in other directions. There are training camp establishments, but I do not think the Minister will maintain that they are appreciably assisting a solution of the problem. It requires a Government scheme which will deal courageously with the problem, even to the extent of making employers antagonistic, a scheme based on the increased productive capacity of the country. Even if a little loss has to be suffered here and there, we should agree that sacrifices must be made in order that the unemployed may be absorbed into employment.
I could make many suggestions, but I do not want to lay down definite schemes. My main point is to ask for an inquiry. This is a sore in the nation's life which must be cured. Governments in the past, like the present Government, have made their efforts, and I give every Government all credit for any effort it has made, but we still have this army of unemployed, and I want the Minister of Labour to agree to institute an inquiry, to have the whole matter threshed out, to accept the Labour party's programme as a basis of inquiry, to have witnesses, and to have every possible fact placed before this inquiry into the fundamental issue of how to absorb the unemployed into industry under fair and decent conditions.
I trust that in the discussion which will follow we may be spared retrospective recriminations about what this or that Government did, or statements that in 1931 we had so many unemployed and in 1933 so many more. I make no excuses for the Labour Governments of the past. They were not Governments such as we

have had since 1931. The point has been made that in 1931 there were 2,500,000 unemployed because we had a Labour Administration. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that it was a minority Labour Government, dependent upon a party that is non-existent, the Liberal party; dependent upon a party that played every possible trick it could in order to sabotage the Labour party's schemes; that it had a practical majority in the House against it; that employers were antagonistic to that form of Government; that the Press was scaring people out of their lives and making them hold on to their money for fear of the bogy that the Socialists would steal their savings and rob their homes. It is not fair or right to say that it is the fault of a Labour Administration that unemployment reached a high figure in 1931, because the answer can be given that during other years of a Labour administration unemployment was much less in Scotland and in England and Wales than it is to-day. I do not want the House to indulge in those retrospective recriminations, but to deal with the problem as it confronts us to-day, and to realise that we on this side would welcome a full inquiry into it.
I ask the Minister of Labour not to give me to-night statistics showing that there has been a decrease of 15,000 unemployed in one area or 10,000 in another area, but to give us definite, formulated schemes which will have as their aim and object the complete clearing away of unemployment, because that can be done. In a recent Debate the Minister of Labour laid great stress on the fact that the unemployed are not a standing army of unemployed. He said that though there may be 2,000,000 people unemployed some of them had been out of work for only two or three days, some only a week, some only three weeks or six months, and that those who had been long unemployed are only a small core. The fact remains that the number of unemployed in the past year has been almost consistently round about the 2,000,000 mark, and that while that unemployment may be spread over a greater number of employed there are a greater number of people who lack any security and who fear for what may happen to them in the near future.
unemployment is a problem that will destroy nations, will destroy governments. It is a menace for a country to have a huge army of unemployed, with young men and young women who, to draw attention to their plight, feel it necessary to chain themselves to Ministers' houses, or to lie down in the roadways of this great, free country in order to draw attention to their starvation diet. The Government have no right to call upon such people to defend their bad, their distressing conditions. I have had some experience of the expedients which the present Minister of Labour has tried in dealing with the unemployment problem. I have visited training camps where the men use the same blankets for three months—the blankets being changed only when a new man comes into the camp after three months—where there are dry lavatories, where the place is nothing but a muck heap when it rains, where there is a complete lack of medical staff, one ex-Army N.C.O. in a camp of roughly 200 men, where the men are allowed to visit the nearest town only once a week. These are unemployed men who we are asking to-day to undertake national service to defend their conditions. The nearest town is 18 miles away. They are well away from the rest of the population, set aside like lepers in some civilised community, as something to be shunned. They can get a week-end pass only once a month. I visited training establishments where the facilities for training were completely inadequate and the choice of subjects was not extensive.
These things may serve one or two people, but we are dealing with a problem with which we cannot tamper and of which the corners cannot be rounded off. It must be cured, and the cure can be brought about only by definite and positive action bringing to the mass of the people the things that they produce and giving them an opportunity of participating in that production. Machinery, generally accepted, has displaced millions of workers. When the employer obtains up-to-date machinery, labour is sent out. The employer insists on the retention of his profits. Invention, genius, modern machinery and improved methods of production are used in this system of society to assist the employers of labour; but they must be met with improved working conditions, the shortening of hours of labour, giving more in purchasing value to the

employés and, generally, by a courageous scheme, formulated after extensive inquiry, to absorb into production those who are unemployed and to eliminate at least the primary place occupied in industry by profit, placing upon industry first and foremost the wellbeing of the people of this country. Such a scheme would have to be courageous, coming from a Government composed as this one is, but if this were done—and it can be done—we should deal with the unemployment problem as we have never dealt with it before. It will be a real move towards bringing decent conditions and happiness into the lives of the vast number of people who are distressed to-day.
I do not want to utter a single sentimental word. I believe that the Minister of Labour and Members of the Front Bench realise by this time what unemployment means to men and women who are proud of themselves and desire their places in the community. I have known young men, sneered at by well-to-do people and referred to as corner boys because they were lounging in the only available place, the street corner, lose pounds in weight because of constant worry from knowing there was no place for them in society. Even if we had only the 100,000 unemployed in this country it would still be the duty of the Government to recognise that good government means legislation for the happiness and the comfort of the majority of the community and that no Government can be satisfied or placid and smug when they need the good wishes and the wellbeing of every man and woman in the country. The Government require tolerance from their people as they never required it before, but when there is an army of nearly 2,000,000 people living in poverty with inadequate unemployment allowances and seeing their children suffer, the Government must take action. Good government must accept its responsibility.
The position has grown up in this country that all our productive resources, are being drawn into the greatest armaments boom that we have ever known. We should have expected not only that all the workers would be employed but that overtime would be worked; but, despite the armaments boom, the army of nearly 2,000,000 unemployed remains. We must look elsewhere for the reason. Trading


estates, training establishments and such little plans may assist some areas, but the trading estates have a grave tendency to depress other areas. I have received an answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland showing that there are 17 firms in our trading estate in Glasgow enjoying derating and grants, while they have establishments elsewhere. The tendency in regard to that small estate is that employers take advantage of it by going into the estate and thus leaving an unemployment problem in some other districts.
We have before us this tremendous army of unemployed, for which the Government have, since 1931, been making schemes. The Government have a tremendous majority. This is not a Labour minority Government but a National Government that can put through this House any legislation it desires and can draw from the finances of the nation any sum it desires. The Government can spend many millions extra upon armaments and they can make to the shipping industry and to the brewers grants of millions of pounds. They can bring before this House the most progressive kind of legislation, yet, since 1931, that is to say for eight years, backed by the financial pundits of the country, the great majority of the Press, by the employers and by the wealthiest of the wealthiest within their own ranks, they have failed in any way appreciably to reduce the number of the unemployed. I ask the Government in the interest of the country and, if they like, in the interest of patriotism, and in order to establish a good feeling in this country towards the law and the freedom and liberties of the country, to institute this inquiry. Let the Government give the inquiry power to probe fully into unemployment and let them bring forward at the earliest opportunity, as a result of the inquiry, legislation that will make a definite and progressive move towards the elimination of unemployment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) on his magnificent speech. I have listened to him a good many times in this House, but on no occasion has he moved me more than he has tonight. I would like to draw the attention of the House and of the

Minister to the Amendment which my hon. Friend has put upon the Paper. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has read it, and has his answer ready, but I am hoping that, after the appeal of my hon. Friend and possibly of a few others in this House, the Minister, if he does not change his line, will at least give some consideration to what we have to say on the matter. My hon. Friend in the introduction to his Amendment, says he desires
to call attention to unemployment and the growth in production.
One of the greatest sources of unemployment is production. The production of to-day, as against the production in the past, is bringing thousands of people into unemployment. It is ironical to think that, when men and women put forward the very best that is in them, they do so knowing that either they or their colleagues are going to be thrown out of work because they are producing more.
I want to speak of the industry with which I am connected, and in regard to which there are some very startling figures. I want to bring it right home, so to speak, to my own back-door, into my division; but before I get into my division I would like to give some rough figures of production in the mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made a most startling statement the other day, and, as I bear the same name as he does, I think he will not mind my borrowing those figures. He says he will let me have them without interest, and I thank him very much. The statement he made was that the mining industry last year produced as much coal as it produced in 1929, but with 126,000 fewer men in the industry; and, moreover, they are working half-an-hour a day less than they did in 1929. It is very startling to think that our men are producing to this extent and throwing other men out of work. I heard it stated yesterday at the Yorkshire Miners' Council that one of the big firms in South Yorkshire has intimated to the Yorkshire Miners' Association that it can do without 3,000 colliers, because the other men can produce the quantity of coal required; and those men are going to take ballots because certain of their colleagues are thrown out of work, and they are asking that they shall share the work. It not only means sharing the work, but the starvation, for there are still pits which


are not working five days a week. There are still pits in my own constituency that are only working something like seven shifts a fortnight.
At the pit where I myself worked, 420 men have been thrown out of work during the last six weeks, and the majority of them are just over the age of 45. When a collier over 45 is out of work, the chances are that he will get no more work at all, and he has at least a good 15 years in him still. The fact that he is 45 shows that he has experience, and, with the strength he possesses, he can bring that experience to bear to help others who arc working around him; but practically speaking, in the mining industry, when a man of that age is out of work, the death sentence has been passed upon him as far as work is concerned. Since I have been in this House, at one pit in my division 1,000 men have been dismissed; another pit has been closed and 800 men thrown out; and in the case of another pit 350 have been stopped. And yet we are producing just as much coal as we ever produced, and are working half-an-hour less per day. The Miners' Federation put this matter to the House recently, and it was rejected. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) brought forward a Motion for the shortening of hours in the mining industry, he asked that the hours should be seven instead of 7½ per day. The Sankey Commission said that, when it was possible to produce 250,000,000 tons a year, the working day should be six hours, and the House accepted that, but we have not got a seven-hour day yet. If the hours were reduced to seven, employment would be found for 60,000 more miners. I hope the Minister will consider that fact.
The second part of my hon. Friend's Amendment states that
existing economic conditions have produced a permanent army of unemployed.
Sometimes in a mining village the threat of notices is hanging over 400 or 500 men, and they do not know who are going to receive them. If you go down the streets of that village on a Saturday night when the notices are going to be put in on the following Wednesday, you will not find a woman with a smile on her face. Each of them is wondering whether her Jack is going to have notice, or whether it is to be her son that is cleared out. The dread of unemployment, and the insecurity of

employment, bring down upon a mining community, or any other community, ill-health. Insecurity bears down upon the mentality and brings about a great amount of sickness in these places. The figures show that in my own county, the West Riding of Yorkshire, between 1926 and the present time, tuberculosis has become more prevalent in the lives of young miners' wives than ever before. It has come about, without a doubt, because of mental worry and insecurity and the fact of there not being sufficient for the family to eat. We are asking that everyone shall volunteer. A man said to me the other day, "They are asking us to volunteer and they are sacking us. Why cannot they find work for us? If we cannot get work now, when shall we ever have it if there is peace on earth and good will to men?" We are asking the Government to get down to an inquiry. If the Government go to the country in the near future, if there are any hon. Members opposite representing depressed areas, they can say goodbye for ever to this House. The feeling in the constituencies where unemployment is rife is this: "Why have not the great National Government got on with the business of finding work for us? If they cannot do it, let them get out of the road and give a chance to someone who can."

9,27 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: We are devoting an hour or two to probably the second most important question that can confront the nation at present. On Thursday we discussed the international question in a crowded House, with everyone tense and wondering what was likely to happen. The question that we are dealing with now is almost equal to it in importance. I am glad that we have an opportunity of asking the House to pay a little more attention than it has done to this most important question. We ask that there should be an inquiry to see if there is any way of dealing with the unemployment problem, and I should like to make one or two suggestions in order that the Minister might consider some points of view that we have in our minds.
The productive capacity of the country is surpassing almost anything that was ever thought about 20 years ago, and in its train it is throwing thousands out of work. The question before us is, How are we to catch up that kind of thing?


My suggestion is that an examination should be made into every industry to see what it can absorb from the unemployed. There are about 14,000,000 workers in employment and we have 2,000,000 out of work, about 1,500,000 permanently. To absorb them it would mean that for about every 10 persons employed one would have to be engaged in industry. Surely that is not too much to ask. I think it could easily be done. If productive capacity is going on displacing men, some attempts will have to be made before long to meet the difficulty, and it can only be done by absorbing them on the line that I have indicated. Another method would be the gradual shortening of hours, so that everyone could be employed. At a time of national crisis, when there is an enemy at the gates, we range ourselves together to prevent him from coming in, and it is not too much to ask that in the crisis that we are facing now we should range ourselves in a way which will give employment to all.
The gravest feature of the question, to my mind, is what it means to the older workers. For some time I have been appealing to the Government to examine this question. I have tried to find out from the Minister how many people of 55 and over are out of work. I do not know whether he is deliberately avoiding it, but I have not been able to get the figure. Last week I put down a question in regard to the employment of these people where contracts are given by the Government—where aerodromes are being set up and Government works are being undertaken. I tried to find out how many of the aged people were taken on. The right hon. Gentleman deliberately avoided answering that. He said he did not know; he had not the power to examine it. Yet it is Government contracts in which there should be some attempt to take the elderly people. No examination of the question is being made. It is just being allowed to go on. We have a gradually growing army of unemployed with a greater increase of the elder people than ever before. It is a sad state of things that this should be allowed to go on, and we are asking that more interest should be shown by the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite than is being done.
On Saturday I paid a visit to my constituency and I went into the unemployment hut to have a chat with the men. I found 20 or 30 aged people sitting round a little stove trying to make them selves comfortable. In industrial districts those who have a little money generally make the best use of it on a Saturday night and enjoy themselves, but these men had no money to spend. They were aged people with no chance of getting employment, and the outlook seemed hopeless to them. I tried to give them some idea of the international situation. I thought it might interest them. When I had finished my narrative, they said, "Have you forgotten about the unemployed? Is nothing being said about us in the House of Commons?" I said, "Very little. Unfortunately at a time like this what appears to be the greater issue dominates everything, and we get little or no chance of bringing your case before the House of Commons" They said it was time that something was done, and they asked me if sometime I would bring down the Minister of Labour to see how they were getting on and to see the aged people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay a visit to Leigh if only to see these old people and get some idea of what life means to them. If at a time like this we are calling upon the sons of these people to give all they can, we should have at least some respect for their parents, and not allow them to be thrown on the scrap-heap. I hope we shall have some assurance that the Government are examining the question, and that we may have some hope that something will be done to relieve the tremendous burden of unemployment.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Batey: Although the hour was late when the Debate started, I am glad that the House has turned its attention once again to unemployment, which is, without doubt, the most important domestic question this House can consider. During the past 12 months foreign affairs have left us with hardly any time to bring this question before the House, and have sheltered the Minister from criticism on this matter; otherwise, he would have been bound to face the unemployment situation to a far greater extent than he has. During the Recess I have been in Durham. I confess that when I go to the distressed areas there I come back feeling bitter against the Government,


because I feel there that there has been absolutely nothing done to try to improve the position. Lord Baldwin, when he was Prime Minister, said, on 25th February, 1933:
The one nightmare of my life for years has been unemployment. How I rejoice to feel that we have now the hour in which we ran and ought to start with a new vigour and spirit.
When 1 re-read that statement I wonder where is the new vigour and spirit. It is six years since that statement was made, and the position is worse to-day than it was then. In my division there are two Employment Exchanges. Tonight, I was comparing the index figures for unemployment at those two exchanges, Crook and Spennymoor, for the latest period, March this year, with those for March last year. The index figure for Crook in March last year was 21.1, and for March this year it has risen to 27. There is a similar state of affairs in respect to Spennymoor, where the index figure for March last year was 19.3, and for March this year it has risen to 26.5. The index figures for the whole of the county of Durham show an increase also. To-night, I want to plead especially for South-West Durham, which the Minister himself has described as a black spot, where things get worse month after month and the Government do not seem able to do anything. But I will leave South-West Durham for the moment, and talk about the county as a whole. The index figure for unemployment in Durham for March, 1938, was 18.6, and in March this year it had risen to 21.5.
If there is not, in those figures alone, a case for an inquiry, I wonder when a case for an inquiry could be made. In South-West Durham especially, all the money that is being spent by the Government on munitions has left us as we were. All those millions have passed us by. All the money the Government have spent on the Special Areas has made no difference to us. So we are entitled to say that the Government should not be content. On the last two occasions when the Minister spoke, the impression he made on my mind was that he was quite satisfied with what was being done. If we fail in a war our failure can be set down as being due to the Government's failure to deal with unemployment. I have said that in the whole county of Durham unemployment has increased.

The Durham Public Assistance Committee this year have to face an expenditure of£1,500,000 on Poor Law relief, and nearly 600 of the men who are on public assistance in Durham ought to be under the Unemployment Assistance Board: it is only due to a technicality that they are not. But if they were under the Unemployment Assistance Board that would not satisfy us. This inquiry which is being asked for to-night should be held in order to see whether work cannot be found for these men. Only the Government can provide work.
I am glad that the question of unemployment has been raised to-night. I want the Minister to consider this question of an inquiry, and to start with an inquiry into the means test. I admit that during the last year or two the means test seems to have been rarely mentioned in the House: we have never seemed to have time to bring it before the House; but it is a burning question in the distressed areas. Any Member who goes into the distressed areas and meets hundreds of people who are on the means test must realise that something needs to be done. We have never had the chance of discussing the last report of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I was impressed with the passage in the report which, dealing with the household resources upon which the means test is based, said that in taking into consideration these resources the income from sons and daughters amounted to no less than£9,450,000, while the income going into these households from brothers and sisters was assessed at no less than£2,372,600, and the income coming into these households from old age pensions, widows' and orphan's pensions, and blind pensions was assessed at no less than£1,441,100. That is no credit to the Government. The Germans and the Italians could not do anything worse than to take into consideration blind pensions, in order to reduce the amount of unemployment assistance paid to these people.
The Government ought to hold an inquiry to see whether it is worth while being so mean as to take these household resources from sons and daughters, old age pensioners, widows and orphans and blind pensioners. The total amount required to put the matter right would not be more than£5,000,000. The Government have an abundance of money to give away. If a foreign country asked for


£5.000,000 they would say, "Here is£5,000,000," and would hand out the money to the foreign country, although there might not be any prospect of getting it back. The Government are also prepared to give the farmers and shipowners whatever money they want. The Government ought to turn their attention to the holding of an inquiry into the possibility of removing the stigma from the working classes by abolishing the means test. That is the first subject upon which I would like to see an inquiry.
I am glad that some of my colleagues have raised the question of finding work for old men of 45 years. The Minister raised great hopes when, some 12 months ago, he went round the country giving the impression that he was seriously going to consider whether something could not be done to provide work for men of 45 years of age. We believe that that has ended where everything else has ended, and that nothing is being done. It is a calamity that men of 45 years of age should be put on the industrial scrap-heap and regarded as old men who cannot get work. The Minister should hold an inquiry into this question and se whether he cannot find somebody with ideas to help him to do something in this connection. I would also like to see an inquiry into the stoppage of collieries. The Government seem to be quite content that colliery companies should rationalise and close pits. On Sunday I came past a pit which, 12 months ago, was producing 900 tons a day. It is a pit where there is an abundance of coal to be worked. The men have been thrown on to the scrap-heap.
It is the duty of the Government, when private enterprise has completely failed, to find work for these men, and if the Government will not do it, they ought to make way for another Government who will try to deal with the matter. If private enterprise is satisfied with the closing of collieries, then the Government ought to consider ways and means of opening such collieries. The Government have spent a great deal of money on a trading estate in Durham, but there is only one cure for unemployed miners, and that is, to put them back into the pit. The Government should start utility companies. We, of course, would nationalise the industry, but, as the Government do not believe in nationalisation, utility

companies ought to be formed to open these pits so as to provide work for the miners.
I honestly believe that to-day there is no need in this country for a miner to be unemployed. The proper development of the extraction of oil from coal would mean that every miner could be put back into the pit to produce coal. The Government must deal with this matter. It is no use leaving it to private enterprise. The Government, as they have done in the case of aircraft factories, should spend money upon the erection of plant for the extraction of oil from coal, and in that way they would solve the question of the unemployed miner better than in any other way. The Government should realise that unemployment is still a burning question, and that far more is required to be done than has been done during the last few years. If the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything else, I urge him to hold these inquiries to see whether it is not possible for someone to help him to end the poverty among the workers. The amount of poverty in the distressed areas is amazing. You can see poverty stamped upon men, women and children. There is no need, in a wealthy country like this, for the poverty that exists to-day. Unemployment can be solved, and the Minister ought to do far more than he has done up to the present in an attempt to solve this question.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I am very glad indeed to have an opportunity of discussing unemployment to-night, because, amid our immense preoccupations with foreign affairs, it is inevitable that to a certain number of people in the back streets, and particularly in the distressed areas, there should come a feeling that their fate is being forgotten in the plight of Czecho-Slovakia and various other peoples, who are doubtless worthy and deserving of support, but who are so far away that they feel that, if the Government cannot look after them at home, they are not likely to do very much good anywhere else. Therefore, the psychological effect of this Debate will be to show that this House, at any rate, has not forgotten the worst distresses among its own citizens.
I was moved to speak by a certain amount of incredulity which appeared among some hon. Members on the


benches opposite concerning the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) when he spoke of men of 45 being regarded as old men. There seemed to be a wave of protests. I dare say that on personal grounds a great many of us here would be reluctant to feel that men of 45 were already old men. I should have thought that those who have had experience of the industrial areas would take it almost as a common-place that that was in fact the case, and that for those of 45 who are out of work there is very little hope of getting back into work. There are so many of the young and active, those whose strength has not been enfeebled by years of toil and, what is even more deadly, by years of unemployment, all competing for the available jobs, that the chances of those over 45 who are out of work are very slight indeed. I think that is particularly the case in those areas which depend upon the heavy industries, which wear people out and which call for a very active and arduous form of employment and a greater degree of nourishment than is required by those engaged in the lighter industries. When those people are thrown out of work, not for one year or two but perhaps for as long as 10 years, by the time those years have passed they may be genuinely incapable of going back to the work which they would have been fully capable of doing if they had been taken in time and taken care of sufficiently meanwhile.
In all the areas dependent upon the heavy industries—I dare say it extends to other areas as well—you have many who may be described in the terms of the Amendment on the Paper as belonging to the permanent army of unemployed. As to the exact numbers of that permanent army there may be differences of opinion. The Minister has put it at a rather less figure than some people on this side of the House, but that there is such a permanent army there can be no doubt whatever. If that is the case now, when money is being poured out in millions in providing work of a particular kind to meet a particular emergency, one cannot but look to the future with a kind of shudder that the assurance of peace, which is one of the greatest blessings for which we pray, may bring terrible problems to be solved by the Government. When the expenditure on armament ceases, as I pray it may at the

earliest possible moment, what plans have been made and to what extent are we looking forward to see how we can deal with the new army of unemployed which, unless we are prepared to deal with it, may also become a permanent army of unemployed?
The Motion asks for an inquiry, and there are many grounds on which an inquiry can be justified. The hon. Member for Spennymoor, in his eloquent and moving speech, referred particularly to the County of Durham, of which he is so distinguished a representative. I am a neighbour of the County of Durham, and I am so near to it that I am aware of its problems. In some senses those of us on Tees-side, on the border of Durham, are almost in a worse position than Durham from one point of view. Durham has had certain legislation passed for its benefit, along with the other distressed areas, but we who have problems very similar to theirs have been left out of the attempts to deal with the problems of the Special Areas. Therefore I would ask that if an inquiry is contemplated one of the first subjects that that inquiry should tackle should be the replanning of the Special Areas, and the re-examination of the question as to what those Special Areas are and where the help is really needed.
Such a replanning and re-examination has been needed for many years, because the efforts which have been made—and I am not attempting to belittle them—to bring relief to the distressed areas, are not in all cases bringing the relief where the distress is felt most. I am bound to raise this point tonight in view of the possibility that, arising from ths Debate, something may be done to provide the basis for future legislation, and to acquire a knowledge upon which the future planning for the distressed areas may be based, in order that the help that is so badly needed may go to those who need it most.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) rendered the House a service by the issue that he has raised in his Amendment on the Paper. I am tempted almost to follow the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) in his examination of the means test, but I will not do so, for if I did the House would not adjourn nearly as early as I


hope it will. There was one original defence for the means test, and that was that there might be a family where there were unemployed persons drawing benefit. Those persons had considerable means of their own, and having drawn benefit for a considerable period they had amassed such means that they should no longer continue to draw benefit, without a test as to their means. One thing that has been blown sky high is the theory that there exists an unemployed army with large sums of money at their disposal. The number of applicants for unemployment assistance allowance who have more than small means at their disposal represents a very meagre percentage. The percentage would not pay for one-third of the expenditure in trying to check the means test.
I have not much hope of the Government doing anything to adjust the means test, but in these days of high patriotic feeling, when it is almost a crime not to be more patriotic than one's neighbour, there is one thing that this patriotic Government ought to have done in connection with the means test, and that is to remedy its effect upon the reservists. To-day, the reservist who has served his country and comes back, is penalised. We are crying out to-day for recruits, but if the reservist is unemployed and in receipt of unemployment allowance, the sum that is paid to him each quarter is taken into account in assessing his unemployment allowance when he has been on unemployment for a certain length of time. For sheer meanness I know nothing to exceed the taking into account of the reservist's money which is paid to him because he is to be ready at any moment to serve his country. This patriotic Government takes into account the sum paid to the man who has to be ready at any time, not to give£1 or£100 to his country, but, if necessary, his life. I should have thought that if there was one thing in these days which the patriots on the other side of the House would have cried out aloud to be abolished, it would have been the taking into account of the miserable sums allocated to the reservist.
The other matter upon which, I think, hon. Members opposite could join with us is that of pensions varying from 5s. to£1 a week which are paid to the

mothers and sometimes the fathers of deceased soldiers. If there is an unemployed person in the house everything after a certain percentage of that£ is taken into account and deducted from the means test allowance. I should have thought that the common decencies and niceties of life would have led the Government to abolish such a policy, which they could do without any loss of dignity. But, apart from the money aspect of the means test, there is a great moral issue which is far more important than the financial issue, and that is the breaking up of the home, the constant inquiries into details of family life. Such a consideration far outweighs any monetary value. I do not want to be driven into a discussion of the distressed areas. I hope hon. Members will not think me intolerant, but when I hear them discuss what are called distressed areas, I sometimes have really little patience with them. I represent a part of Glasgow which has never been anything else but a distressed area. Even when Glasgow was prosperous my Division, for good or ill, seemed to be a place where poverty abounded.
I want to make a plea for places like this great City of London. I can see patches like Dagenham where the exchange is teeming with men, decent beings, who are crying aloud just as much as they are in my division for something to be done. While we are considering some areas we must not be neglectful of others where there is an equal necessity for something to be done. Nor do I take the view that this is entirely an old man's problem. I go regularly and periodically to my division. I have hardly missed a Sabbath since I became a Member of the House, and I am constantly meeting men of 30 and 40 years of age who have not worked for years. It used to be said that the first year was the worst, but when you are unemployed for two and more years it becomes such a terror that you are hardly able to look your fellow-men in the face. I want to make a plea in connection with the host of new industries which are now growing up. In the laundry industry and in the sweetmeat industry you get boys and girls started just after they have left school. Usually the trade is governed by a trade board, and the moment these boys and girls become 18 years old they are


thrown on the streets with a ruthlessness which is cruel.
That is the problem; boys and girls being marched into these industries, young people, nimble of eye and finger, who are kept there until they are 18 and then when nobody wants them are thrown on to the streets. They are too old to learn a trade; the average employer does not want them. I do not want to belittle the old; I think the best way to tackle that problem is to increase pensions and take them out of industry, but, whatever else, we ought to try and keep the children and young people out of our industrial battle and see that they do not drift into these kinds of trades and then be thrown out again when they are 18 years of age. I hope the Minister, at least, will be able to accept that part of the Amendment on the Paper, which deals with an examination of proposals to mitigate and eliminate this terrible wastage of youthful labour which at the moment is being thrown on the scrapheap. When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was Minister of Labour he said that he was going to consult the employers and workpeople on the question of the hours of labour; he was going to have conversations to see how far they could be adjusted. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether anything has been done, or if it is one of those issues which in the international crisis has been thrown aside?
May I be excused one other word, as it affects my native city and Scotland. I want to make a plea that the Minister should examine the unemployment problem in Glasgow and in Scotland in relation to the housing problem. There is a terrible housing problem in our midst; people are living under conditions which if I were to describe them I could excuse anyone who said I was not telling the truth, they are so bad. I could describe housing conditions of the most harrowing and dreadful kind, people living like the beasts in parts of our great city of Glasgow. Despite many efforts, that problem continues to be a terrible one for our people. I ask the Minister to examine the problem of a population requiring homes and a population requiring work in order that it may enjoy a higher standard of living. I ask him whether, in Scotland, those charged by his Department could not, in conjunction with the trade union movement, inquire into this great problem of

the shocking and terrible housing conditions in many parts of the country and at the same time the existence of so many unemployed people.
I must say that at first I was a little cynical about the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Maryhill. 1 was reared in a school which distrusts inquiries. I remember that in my early days I was dreadfully taken with them, but after a time, I saw that every Government put matters on to inquiries. Let me say earnestly that I agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member not altogether because of what it contains, but because of the issue which it raises. It raises the fundamental issue of poverty, which ought to be voiced in this House. I welcome the Amendment because it returns to first principles, the conditions of the people. One can talk about great international issues, as hon. Members did last Thursday, but in the end democratic Governments will be judged not merely on their victories over great States run by dictators. This country and this Parliament will be judged in the light of what they can give to the common people in happiness and comfort in their homes.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) for raising this subject. I am very surprised that I should be the ninth Member to speak from this side and that there should have been no speech delivered from the Government side of the House. I suppose that the comment on that remark may be that hon. Members on this side ought to be glad that they are given an opportunity of making their speeches without there being any adverse comments from the Government Benches; but I should have thought that, particularly in these times of emergency and crisis, an Amendment of this description would have received the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I want to draw attention to the very moderate terms of the Amendment on the Order Paper. It calls for an inquiry, and that inquiry would consider how best we could make use of what are, after all, the primary resources of the nation.
In my short time in this House, and particularly during recent months, I have heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite suggesting more and more


vigorously that we should marshal the man power of the nation to carry arms. We are not averse to any suggestions that may be put forward from the point of view of defending what is best in the nation, but surely it is anomalous to suggest that we should marshal the man power of the nation only for something which, although it has happened in the past and may happen again in the future, is not an every-day incident of life. We have experienced more peace than war. I suggest that the Amendment relates both to peace and to war. When I hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite asking for the use of the nation's man power to carry arms, I am rather sceptical of their good intentions. In the past, when emergencies arose, there was an old doggerel rhyme associated with war, which ran:
When storm clouds gathered, and war was nigh.
The workman and soldier was the people's cry;
When war was o'er and things were righted,
The worker was forgotten, and the soldier slighted.
Hon. Members opposite ask for soldiers only because there is danger. I wonder whether they forget that, generally speaking, the soldier has another capacity and that in civil life he is usually a worker. I should have imagined that hon. Members opposite would have, even by their presence in the House on this occasion, shown a desire to seize the opportunity in these days of stress of making use of the man-power of the nation in the production of the commodities that the nation requires. I wonder what future historians will have to say about the age in which we live. I wonder whether their judgment will be flattering to the legislators of today, who, in a time of crisis, allow 2,000,000 men to remain without employment. These unemployed people have to be kept in some fashion either by the taxes or by the rates of the country. Even when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill suggested, some of them by stress of prolonged unemployment develop into corner-boys and find their way into the police court—even in that unfortunate event those unemployed people have to be kept in some way or other. Therefore, I think there is all the wisdom in the world in suggesting that this House should now be considering that phase of the question.
I would draw attention particularly to the unfortunate legacy incurred by certain districts in consequence of unemployment. We are asked, and rightly asked, in these days even though there is not an ideal condition of things, at least to seek to preserve those institutions which will enable us to put things right. I support that idea, but there is this to be said about it. We cannot expect complete unity unless we achieve some degree of equality in essentials. In this time of stress there are benighted districts, suffering heavily from the toll of unemployment and left in a very parlous state. They have been left in that position as a result of unemployment. While the nation partially supports the unemployed, the districts concerned, either through the efforts of private individuals or collectively through the municipal authorities, have to deal with a legacy of trouble which has been brought upon them by national or international causes. Take the case of a coal-mining or steel-producing district. Hon. Members in all parts of the House and the country generally expect that should war break out affecting this country, those districts would immediately get into full swing in the production of the coal and steel which the nation requires. If, in short, you are using these industrial districts as a reserve agency for your times of stress, and you are doing it from the national point of view, surely in the waiting period until they are needed the nation should increasingly support those districts.
Quite recently in the locality which I represent we have been going through our municipal elections, and in those districts the warring tendencies between the different candidates have been as to how best the rates of the different industrial districts can be reduced. More largely, the difficulty that obsesses these districts is because of the heavy toll of unemployment that they have. In short, rates rise because heavy unemployment: exists, and purchases are low in. the trading concerns because of the same cause. Hon. Members from the North country have spoken about their difficulties. I was provileged to read, a few days ago, figures concerning the Durham district, and there is a story to tell there which, reduced to simple figures and proportions, should appeal to all Members of this House and to the country outside. In one phase of the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of my hon.


Friend the Member for Maryhill, he deals with the new methods of production. In Durham, briefly, the position in the mining industry is that 10 years ago on the average each miner produced 200 tons of coal, but by reason of the new methods of production, the mechanisation of the industry, present-day production is 309 tons per man. The purchasing power by way of wages of the people who have been fortunate enough to keep their jobs has been reduced very nearly one half, and the awful position is that, though inventive genius and the extra labour effort put in by the men in the pit have resulted in an increased output, whereas 10 years ago seven men used to go to Durham coal pits on an average, that number is now reduced to four, and three of those seven men are wending their weary way, either to the Employment Exchange or to the public assistance committee, or are being kept out of the reduced wages of relatives by way of the means test that has been imposed of recent years by this House.
I want now to touch upon a matter with which, I presume, all Members coming from industrial districts have been affected, and I in no less degree. While we make speeches in this House on this problem of unemployment dealing with general principles that affect us all in greater or less degree, individually we seek to move in a way that will bring industry into our own immediate divisions and constituencies. I plead guilty, if it is guilt at all, though I do not think it is, really. I think it is the job of any hon. Member to do what he can to help his constituency along, and I have some degree of pride in the fact that I have pleaded with the Minister of Labour, and shall do so again, to look with favour on my constituency and to give it some degree of the employment that may be going in these little periods that we have of supposed boom. If we are successful in getting a new industry in my division it may be at the expense of some other hon. Member's division, and, in effect, we shall not have remedied the position so far as the nation is concerned. The proposal of the hon. Member for Mary-hill is to have regard to this problem not in an individual way but in a national way, and to inquire how we can use the resources of the nation in the best interests of the nation and of the individuals in it. I have visited other lands and worked in

industries there. While I often complain bitterly about some of the conditions that exist in my country, I am proud of the conditions we have, for they stand in favourable comparison with a good many of the conditions in many other lands. That does not mean, however, that I think all is well in Britain.
We hold the view on this side—and I would like to feel that hon. Members on the other side also have the view—that this Britain of ours has been handed to us to use to the best of our ability in the interest of the whole nation. I do not believe that the Government are doing that job in the most effective manner. I cannot conceive that this Britain, with all that it has at its command in mineral wealth, in wealth of other kinds and in manpower, which is second to none compared with other lands, is making the best of those resources. I hope that hon. Members on the other side will not let all the speeches be made from the anti-Government benches and that if we cannot have some support from them for my hon. Friend's proposal we shall have some comments as to where it is wrong. We are in difficult days, in days of stress. Perhaps hon Members opposite are more vocal about the need of a united nation than we are on this side. I can assure them that we are no less sincere in our desire to have a united nation than they are, but the way to get the best, if we cannot have equality, is at least to lessen the margin between the degradation associated with poverty in unemployment and the extravagance at the top of the ladder. We could at least assist to that end if we accepted my hon. Friend's proposal and found out why these things should exist. I suggest that a test in the country of how this proposal would be received would prove the truth of the utterance to which I have just given vent.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I do not know whether a back-bench Member on the Opposition side need apologise for getting up at this time to continue this Debate. One would have imagined that the Amendment on the Paper, dealing with such vitally important matters, would at least have inspired some response from the Government benches, but up to now we have noticed nothing but loyalty to the conspiracy of silence that obviously prevails there. I do not know what would


have happened if the Amendment could have gone to a Division to-night—and I very much regret that it cannot—and I am also extremely eager to hear the reply of the Minister of Labour, because whatever kindly feelings may have been expressed in any of the speeches from these benches the Amendment is an indictment of the Minister of Labour and certainly of the Government. By implication it argues that the Government have not acted on any plan, that the methods of dealing with unemployment have been absolutely incoherent and uncoordinated, and that all the Government have done is just to tinker with a problem which has much human suffering and tragedy wrapped up within it.
What has been done directly by the Government in its efforts or in its pretences to deal with this great problem? The unemployed have been given training centres and reconditioning camps, junior instruction centres have been established, particularly in the Special Areas, trading estates have been established in certain parts of the country and, of course, we have had considerable legislation; but no Member on the Government Benches could honestly say of these expedients that they were anything other than the cheapest devices. Meanwhile, communities have disintegrated, great and at one time prosperous areas have become almost derelict, tens of thousands of the population have been uprooted and driven by poverty and the instruments created by this Government into almost every nook and corner of the land. Local government has become almost unbearably strained. Cultural institutions have beeu destroyed in many parts of the country. The health of millions of our people has been badly affected, and I am sorry to say that hundreds of thousands of decent men and women have had their lives embittered. That is just what has happened.
One of my strongest criticisms of the Minister of Labour is that he, knowing the problem very well—knowing it as well as any Member in this House—has not availed himself of certain expedients which would have been far more successful than those which I have mentioned. He refused to try a solution which he cannot say was not urged upon him in a thousand speeches from this side of the House.

Why did he not try to control the location of new industries in this country? That could have been done within this system, which we are compelled to condemn because of the appalling suffering that it brings upon our people.
That would have been an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make a contribution to the distressed areas of this country. I know of nothing that would have contributed more substantially to prevent the disintegration which is taking place in those communities and to give people work to do within their own homes. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman has not tried to establish that control which is so obviously necessary. Apparently he and the Government have acted upon the most stupid and maddest of assumptions that communities of men, women and children are more mobile than modem industry. That is a fantastic theory, almost bordering upon insanity, for a Government to have acted upon, because such a movement of men, women and children means the breaking up of homes and families and the destruction of real cultural forces. It means the destruction of this country. I have seen it done in my own constituency and I naturally feel very bitterly about it. I knew very well the people whom it affected, and I knew the contribution which those closely-knit families were making to the best that is in our civilisation.
The right hon. Gentleman refused to do what he could have done within this system. He ought to have challenged his position within the Government; he knows that he would have received support from the majority of this House and that the Government would have sensed it. Instead of that, there has been stupid persecution. The Government have been directly responsible for a good deal of the poverty, but they were not satisfied with that; they created instruments to persecute the poor because of their poverty. Those instruments have been referred to by several speakers from these benches. That is the one big and unpardonable thing done by this Government. We know how loyal the Government are to the principle of private ownership and how they revel in their dominant position as the Government of the ruling class, but this is the one thing that they could have done and which would have contributed in a very great measure to


lessening the effects of poverty, disappointment and embarrassment and the hurts and humiliations of those broken families who have felt and suffered in those districts. That was the one big, decent contribution which this capitalist Government could have made within the capitalist system, but they refused to do it and since they have left that refusal on record, some of us, with all the will in the world for friendship and cooperation, can never forget it, and we shall find it horribly difficult to forgive that remissness on the part of the Government.
We are discussing this question in the year 1939, not back in 1839. This is a year that revels in great scientific discoveries. The men and women of this country can say with pride that we have at least solved the problems of economic stress by producing all the material to supply the needs of men and women; but the ghastly commentary is that, with a Government such as we have, and as long as the Government are permitted to misrule and misgovern this country, we shall have to pay the penalty for the greatest of human achievements, the knowledge of how to produce in abundance for our material needs. We ask the Government at least to agree to a scientific inquiry into the causes of these terrible contradictions. The right hon. Gentleman is no nearer liquidating them than he was before the Act of 1934 was passed.
Reference has been made in this Debate to the means test. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters on the Government Benches realise that in the last 10 years that has been the biggest swindle that was ever perpetrated in this country. I commend to every Member of the House the last report of the Unemployment Assistance Board, from which he will see what a real swindle that has been. The word is a strong one, but I regret to say that it is not too strong. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has told the House tonight how, in the application of the means test, the old age pension, the blind person's pension, the widow's pension, the orphan's pension, the compensation payment to the injured workman, are all being taken into consideration and brought within the means test. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the machine brought into being by the Act

of 1934 is costing this country£4,600,000 in salaries and wages, and that, after pursuing by the means test all these petty pittances that these poor people receive, the right hon. Gentleman, through the Unemployment Assistance Board, can only show a profit of£157,000. That is the meaning of the means test in pounds, shillings and pence.
It is very difficult for some of us who come from districts like Merthyr Tydfil and many others in this country to curtail our speeches as we feel we ought to do. I would ask the Government to accept the proposal that has been put before them. All that it implies will be discussed on a thousand platforms in this country in the very near future; all its implications will come out while the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are making eloquent speeches about voluntary service, when appeals on the basis of patriotism are being made, and when every hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches is trying to put across to the people of this country compulsory service. This is the Nemesis of misgovernment, and, unless the Government are prepared to face up to the implications of their own measures, of their lack of planning and of everything that is inherent in this work, they will be awakened when on the score of patriotism appeals are made to those who have suffered as the result of the shortcomings of the Government in the past few years.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Government can complain with regard to the moderation with which this Debate was initiated and has been continued. While we have had some nine or ten speeches from this side of the House, we have not yet had a single speech from the other side. I take it that silence gives consent and that the principle of the Amendment will receive the agreement of hon. Members opposite. Indeed, if the Minister of Labour will nod his head, giving silent acquiescence to the principle of the matter that we are debating, I will readily curtail the length of the Debate and sit down. I give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity not to shake his head but to nod it. I am afraid we are expecting a little too much from him. It may appear strange that it has been deemed necessary to table an Amendment in the terms that are on the Order Paper, but we have tried almost


every other means of getting the Government to do something. It is not that there is any doubt in the mind of a single person on this side of the House as to what is the real cause of unemployment as we see it to-day, but we felt it necessary that the Government should be convinced, because from their attitude to this very serious problem during the last seven or eight years we are satisfied that they do not yet realise the gravity of the situation. We, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), do not like inquiries. We feel that they are not altogether useful. But in this case, we ask for a comprehensive inquiry dealing not only with the causes of unemployment, but in order to formulate
a policy which by ensuring that the benefits of modern industrial development with its great and growing potentialities in the production of wealth may inure to the nation, will solve the problem of unemployment and poverty in the midst of plenty
In our opinion such an inquiry is justified to see whether modern invention and the application of scientific methods to industry could not be considered from the point of view of bringing to the working people a greater share of the wealth that is being produced.
The fact that we have no fewer than 1,750,000 unemployed and that, notwithstanding all the money spent in the intensification of armament production, together with the£20,000,000 to be spent upon air raid precautions, is a grim reminder that, apart from that expenditure, economic conditions are as bad as they havt been for some time and would be very much worse had it not been for this huge expenditure. The optimistic words which we have so often from the Minister of Labour are not accompanied by optimistic action. Indeed, the Government cannot be optimistic about the amount of unemployment in this country. They are really pessimistic defeatists. They vaguely hope, but they do nothing. They have no confidence that anything can be done. The view they hold is that unemployment is incurable; that is not subject to the will of Governments at all, but part of the ordained nature of things. We on this side reject that view as being callous and untrue. We say that, just as the economic system from which unemployment arises is man-made, so it can be adapted and controlled

until it serves the interests of all the people of this country.
It is because of that conviction that we ask for this inquiry. Unemployment may lessen or increase, but the fact remains that we have a higher percentage of the insured workers of this country unemployed than we had in 1929, and there is no real effort being made to deal with this terrible problem. We may hear from the Government this evening that so much has been done, and that plans are forthcoming. What we ask is that the principle of this Amendment should be accepted. A few hundred thousand less on the register does not mean that the problem is solved. It is not progress. It means a little less misery for some of the working people of this country for a few weeks. We want the Government to face the truth of this matter, which is that nothing will be achieved for these idle men until this or another Government make the conquest of unemployment their primary task, and a task of major importance, and stick to the job until it is completed.
Let me deal briefly with the cause of the position, as we see it today. There are changes taking place in the industries of this country: the very large reduction in the number of workers employed in what are, after all, the productive industries, and the very large number of workers who are engaged in the non-productive industries. Take a few of the industries—coal mining, iron and steel, agriculture, cotton and woollen and other textile goods. Between 1923 and 1937, there was a reduction of something like 750,000 workpeople in these purely productive industries, whereas, to take just one of the other industries, that of distribution, one finds in the same period an increase of something like 900,000 or 1,000,000 workers. The nation cannot look upon changes of that kind, with results as we see them in this country at present, without feeling very uneasy. I have no objection to a miner changing his job from digging coal underground to serving commodities over a counter or waiting in the House of Commons or something of that sort, but we complain that the Government appear to be absolutely without any thought as to the effect of these changes upon the economic and industrial life of this country. They must be aware of the changes which are taking place as a result of the application of the


machine, of science and of the elimination of human labour, especially in the productive industries of this country. I am not going to deal at any great length with these industries, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, and most hon. Gentlemen opposite, have the information before them, but there is no industry in this country but what has, during the course of the last eight or 10 years, seen a considerable reduction in the number of workpeople employed as a result of more scientific methods being employed in the production and the application of the machine.
From the figures given by the Cambridge Economic Society, the changes which have taken place in five years from 1930–35 in engineering alone show that the productivity of each person employed in that industry has increased by 52 per cent. They give a list of 12 of the important industries, and say that there has been an average increase in the productivity of the men employed in these industries of something like 26 per cent. One would imagine that if there were an industry in this country which would be fully employed at the present time, when there is such a demand for the products of that industry, it would be the iron and steel industry. In the iron and steel industry, 18 per cent. of the workers are unemployed, and in the shipbuilding industry—and I do not think that in any year during this time there has been as much naval shipbuilding as there is at the present time—22.8 per cent, of the men are unemployed. During the last seven years there has been a reduction of 140,000 persons employed in the agricultural industry. The machine is coming right into these old established industries, and there is this elimination of human labour.
How can we expect to deal with the problem of unemployment unless new methods are employed? You can measure the productivity of the people in this country by the increase in the amount of wealth produced. I recently made a speech in this House in which I referred to the fact that in a book written by a well-known economist it was stated that in the last 1oo years the wealth of this country had increased eight-fold. Another economist says that between 1911 and 1935 the wealth produced in this country increased by nearly three times, and in the

three years from 1933 to 1935 there was an average increase in the national income of more than£300,000,000 a year as a result of the increased wealth produced. During these years there was an average of something like 2,000,000 unemployed. That, in itself, is an indication of the feeling of the working people in this country in respect of an inquiry to deal with the problem of unemployment. We were told in a book published recently that the total value of private property in this country had risen from£11,900,000,000 in 1911–13 to£22,000,000,000 in 1932–33. Notwithstanding Death Duties and what may be regarded by hon. Members opposite as excessive taxation, private property owned by wealthy people in this country has doubled compared with what it was in 1911.
We only need to look at the Revenue Department returns to realise the position. We see from the latest returns that the number of millionaires in the country is on the increase. That is almost entirely a result of the tremendous increase in wealth production by the use of more scientific methods and the use of the machine. We on this side of the House want a rich nation, but we want the nation to be rich in the fact that the people have a standard of lift; which will completely eliminate poverty and give them the economic security to which they are entitled. Who is it that is mainly responsible for the production of the wealth to which I have referred? The men who delve in the pit, the men who plough, the men who work in the factories. I am not eliminating the managerial ability of the men who manage, but it is the industrial worker who is mainly responsible for the wealth that is being produced. This is an age of plenty. We see evidence of superabundance of riches side by side with criminal waste, want and poverty.
The problem of the elderly man has been raised this evening. We are told that this matter has been engaging the attention of the Minister for some time, but little or nothing has been done. I would leave out the word "little" and say that nothing has been done. This problem is not entirely confined to the Special Areas, although it is true that we have a larger proportion of elderly men employed in the Special Areas than in other parts of the country. In my own


division 65 to 70 per cent. of the men who come under the Unemployment Assistance Board—80 per cent. of the men unemployed come under the Unemployment Assistance Board—are over 50 years of age. Every one of those men has given 30, some have given 40 and even 45 years, of their lives to the production of wealth, producing a commodity upon which the material wealth and the domestic comfort of the people of this country very largely depends. What do we find? We find that these elderly men are now the forgotten men. I went to a little mining district about four miles from my own home about a fortnight ago, and I was never at a meeting which upset me more. Forty men, some of whom had given 50 years service to a colliery company, had that day been discharged because of their age.
It is no use hon. Members jeering as some of them did when hon. Members on this side referred to men being too old at 45. There is scarcely a man in the South Wales coalfield over 45 years of age who has any prospect of being employed again if he loses his job, unless the colliery where he was formerly employed reopens. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Employment Exchanges are told not to send men over 45 years of age for underground work in the mines. We say that if work cannot be provided for these men, and the Government have failed to provide them with work, they should have adequate maintenance. We ask for an inquiry; we feel that there should be a new approach to the problem of unemployment.
The tragedy in the Special Areas and in the industrial districts is that thousands of men over 65, some of 70 years of age, are employed and tens of thousands of young men, of 25 and 30, are out of employment; the father of 60 years of age in work and the son of 20 out of work. Is it beyond the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to devise a scheme whereby if we are to have 2,000,000 unemployed we should be able to select those who should be unemployed, that instead of young men becoming demoralised through being unemployed while old men are in work we might reverse the process? Why not take the old men out of

employment by giving them a sufficient inducement to come out and provide work for the younger men? There is nothing against a pension for industrial workers at 65. Civil servants, school teachers and the police get their pensions much earlier, and no one denies it to them. They regard their pension as deferred income. If there are any people who are entitled to a little deferred wages it is the industrial worker.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to set up this inquiry and find out whether there is a method by which unemployment can be dealt with. In America they have legislation for a 40-hour week which is to come into full operation in two years' time. They are also considering the question of retaining the purchasing power of the people. They have refused to consider a reduction in wages because of its effect on the purchasing power of the people. Assume that we increase the pensions of the working people; by£70,000,000 or£80,000,000 a year. Who will benefit? There would be£70 000.000 worth more commodities purchased, the people would spend the money in clothes, boots and additional commodities. This purchasing power also would be more valuable to this country than the combined export trade to the United States, Germany, France and Denmark put together. It is for these reasons that we ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the proposal we have put forward.
We look to the future with some anxiety and concern. We cannot go on spending£580,000,000 a year on armaments, as we are at the present time— the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) dealt with that matter very well—although so many of the industrial workers dread the curtailment of expenditure on these instruments of destruction, from the point of view of their own employment. The present Minister of Labour is the most fortunate Minister of Labour there has been since the War. There has been this growing expenditure on armaments, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that had it not been for this expenditure, instead of there being 1,750,000 men unemployed, the number would have been up to 3,000,000 or 3,500,000.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)indicated dissent.

Mr. Hall: The Minister will have to prove otherwise. In any case, we desire to have the inquiry asked for in the Amendment, and if, as a result of that inquiry, we are proved to be wrong, we shall have no objection. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that, for the last two or three years, there have been between 1,800,000 and 2,000,000 unemployed in this country, and so far he and the Government have failed to solve that problem. That is why we ask him to consult with other people, who may be able to assist him and the Government to come to a conclusion, for the purpose of seeing whether something can be done in the direction we have suggested.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The House never complains about having discussions on real problems, and certainly, it never complains about discussions on the problem of unemployment. That problem has been discussed for many years, and indeed for generations, and it will continue to be discussed as long as there is unemployment. But I must confess that I did rub my eyes when I saw the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the lion. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), because I had understood that, whatever we on this side of the House were able to do, the hon. Member and his friends were fairly sure that they knew what ought to be done. Apparently that assurance is not so strong, and I do not wonder at that, because those who support hon. Members opposite, the trade union leaders of this country, have themselves been making inquiries into unemployment and its causes, and they have prepared a report. That report does not seem to suggest that there is a policy to be discovered for this grave problem.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report?

Mr. Brown: No, but I have seen quotations from the report, which are available to the hon. Gentleman. If he cares to know where I got them, I will tell him. They are quotations from an official statement of the Trades Union Congress made three weeks ago, and among other things, they lay down as axiomatic that:
If there is no single, simple explanation of the unemployment problem as a whole, there is equally no single, simple remedy.
Therefore, we may start from that. I do

not raise this simply as a debating point. I desire to know, as any Minister would when an inquiry is asked for, first of all, is there any common ground between us as to what we mean by the inquiry; secondly, are there any common ends that serve; thirdly, are we agreed even upon the premises on which an inquiry should be based; and fourthly, is there any large field left to be covered that has not been covered year after year by the inquiries that have been made both on the employment and on the unemployment side? I want to say, in the first place, that I think the majority of the House will not agree with the Amendment as it is drafted, because we are asked to make this inquiry
realising that existing economic conditions have produced a permanent army of unemployed.
I certainly could not institute an inquiry or formulate a policy on that basis. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite always find that I am ready to listen to them, but it is a curious thing that directly 1 begin to talk, they want to interrupt me. I do not know why; I do not think I provoke it. I trust they may be good enough to allow me to proceed without interruption, and I hope to be able to answer their questions.
First of all, I should certainly not accept the assumption that you can define the causes of unemployment merely in economic terms. I do not think that any thoughtful citizen, who has considered the question of employment and unemployment over a long period of years, either in this country or any other country with a long-term problem of unemployment, would agree that you could formulate a policy to deal adequately with unemployment, its causes and suggested remedies, merely in economic terms. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in his eloquent speech, used a phrase which illustrated that when he said that in addition to economic causes there was also the problem of the machine. It is not merely a matter of economics. There are social issues at the basis of some of the unemployment in this country. There are even legal issues, for, as has been hinted in the speeches of hon. Members opposite, some of the very reforms which we have already made, create unemployment. There are cultural causes of unemployment. The hon. Member for Aberdare and his colleagues talk of the younger men who, to


use a phrase from that poignant and able book "Men without Work," have been adjusting themselves to the subsistence level. One of the most difficult elements with which any man of any party who is up against this problem has to deal, is the growth in recent years of the idea that it is alway the right of the unemployed man to demand that work shall be brought to him where he lives. That is not economic; it is psychological, it is cultural, it is the result of some of the very reforms in which, viewed as a whole, we rejoice. Therefore I could not accept that part of the hon. Member's premises.
I have listened during this Debate, as I always do on these occasions, with interest, attention and appreciation to the vivid way in which Members have put the case of their own constituents, and to many points of analysis, but as I listened to some of the earlier speeches, I could not help wondering whether I understood properly the terms of the proposition on the Paper. I understood from it and also from the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare, that what was wanted was an inquiry into the effect of increased production through mechanisation, on employment and on the problems of poverty and plenty. But I did not gather that from the speeches which preceded that of the hon. Member for Aberdare, including that of the hon. Member for Maryhill himself. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), for instance, suggested that the inquiry should be into the conditions in every single industry in this land with the object of finding out whether or not a particular industry which was now employing, say, 10 men could take one more. The back ground of a suggestion of that kind is very formidable, and I cannot imagine that a scheme of that kind could be worked effectively by any Minister unless he had be hind him very wide compulsory powers. On the other hand, when I am reproached by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) because, he says, I have power to control the location of industry, which is obviously necessary, I have not such power—

Mr. S. O. Davies: I said it was one of my criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not had that power.

Mr. Brown: I am prepared to take it in that way. When the hon. Member said

it was obviously necessary, I cannot agree with him, for one of the most vivid statements of the case for the location of industry was made in the report of the first Commissioner for the Special Areas in England and Wales. If the hon. Member for Merthyr had read that before making his speech, he would not have said that it was obviously necessary, because one thing that the Commissioner made plain was that, whereas you might say to a man, "You shall not go here," you could not say to a man, "You shall go there," without accepting other obligations. I would therefore say that when speeches of that kind are made, they are made against the evidence.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Whose evidence?

Mr. Brown: The evidence of those who have given months and years of thought to this matter.

Mr. Davies: We know better than they do.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Merthyr, as usual, does not want any inquiry. He knows, therefore, that there is no case for an inquiry, but the hon. Members for Maryhill and Aberdare do want an inquiry, and they must want it because they do not know.

Mr. Davies: You do not know.

Mr. Brown: That may be, but there are certain things we do know, and we do know that we have had many inquiries in recent years. We have had a great inquiry, a formidable inquiry, into the whole problem of industry and trade. There are three volumes of it in the Library of the House now and in the libraries of some hon. Members of the House. We have had a far-reaching inquiry into the problem of industry and finance. We have had inquiries, either by the industries themselves, or by the Government, into the problems affecting the employment and the trade, the prosperity and the adversity, of some of the greatest industries in this land—iron and steel and cotton—and it will not have escaped Members who have listened to the Debate that when mechanisation has been talked about, the whole of the illustrations given in this Debate about the evil results of mechanisation, with two exceptions, have come from one industry, the coal-mining industry. I except the hon. Member for


Aberdare and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but the Official Report will bear witness to-morrow that the whole of the rest of the speeches on this question of mechanisation have dealt with it as illustrated by the increase of production on the one hand and the increase of mechanisation on the other in the coal industry, with a reduction of the total employed. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare when he says that it is general. He went so far as to say there was no industry that did not show this. I cannot agree, because in addition to our own domestic inquiries, Government on the one hand and industrial on the other, there have been regular inquiries into production and prices and world trade conducted in a series of masterly monographs by the Economic Section of the League of Nations, who have regarded this problem not merely from the point of view of Great Britain or Russia or the United States of America, but from the point of view of the world as a whole.
I mention that because in two speeches, especially in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), bitter feeling was expressed because this House had paid a great deal of attention to international affairs and that because of that our own affairs had tended to be overlooked. That surely is a mistaken point of view. When the hon. Member for Aberdare was speaking about the effects of the defence works on unemployment, he wanted me to assume that if those works had stopped, that would necessarily have been a tragic matter. I do not accept that point of view. The observation of all hon. Members of this House will show that in recent years, since recovery began in 1933, there has been one certain effect of one certain cause, the cause the quieting of the international situation and the effect the immediate increase in world demand and in employment. Take this spring. After the autumn there was a very bad time, accentuated in January by the terrible world conditions. Then there was a quiet time and confidence began abroad and at home. February shows 150,000 fewer unemployed and March a further 170,000 fewer. I have no doubt that had there been no interruption of that period of world quiet that there would have been an increase of employment and demand.
One of my main troubles in accepting a proposal of the kind in the Amendment on the Paper is that it proceeds upon the assumption that the maximum ought to be done by Governments to make work-when, as a matter of fact, the maximum employment still comes from the individual demand and initiative of thousands and millions of ordinary men and women in the exercise of their ordinary demands and their ordinary lives. When the hon. Member for Aberdare says that it is a reproach upon our system that there are now fewer men in production and more men in distribution, I would not agree with him. I would say, surely that is a mark, unless it becomes too unbalanced, of a more varied and a higher type of civilisation. When I look at ray register and see some 15,000,000 insured persons, and I know that the largest group is in distribution, I am not looking at a civilisation low, narrow and meagre in character; I am looking at a civilisation which has made for itself ever wider demands in a wider number of homes. When the hon. Member for Aberdare quotes those figures about wealth and assumes that wealth is accumulating in fewer hands, I would say that the whole trend of the last quarter of a century has been to make an ever wider distribution of the wealth of this country into far more hands.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is worse than ever it was.

Mr. Brown: Then let me give an illustration or two. It is an assumption which I do not accept that the whole of these things can be worked out in terms of the economic man or the purely economic state. The assumption is that there are so many "haves" and so many "have-nots," and that there are more "have-nots" than "haves." It is not true. There are more "haves" than "have-nots" in this country, and there are more "haves" than there ever have been.

Mr. G. Hall: I would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a recent book dealing with this very point, in which it is stated that 5 per cent. of the adults over 25 years of age and over own 75 to 80 per cent. of the£22,000,000,000 wealth of this country. One per cent. own


55 per cent. of Britain's property. Therefore, how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the statement he has just made?

Mr. Brown: I shall want to know what the book is and what the authority is—

Mr. Hall: I will hand the book to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: In spite of that, I still maintain that any analysis of the whole problem will make good what I say. Since the hon. Member has given illustrations, I will give one or two. When we ask whether the present system does inure to the nation's benefit, I should say that it does. Take the trend of savings bank deposits, of savings certificates; take the participants of the social services and the cost of those services. Between 1932 and 1937, deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank rose from nearly£306,000,000 to over£470,000,000, and those in trustee savings banks from£154,000,000 to£224,000,000. In the same years the number of savings certificates remaining invested rose from£378,000,000 to£390,000,000. When we talk of wages, the story of the last five years, since the upswing began in 1934, is one of the most remarkable we have ever heard in the history of this country. The estimated net weekly increase in the wages of workpeople, cumulative from 1934 to the end of 1938, was no less than£1,806,700 per week—that is wage-rate increases as reported in the collective agreements which are registered with the Ministry of Labour. And that is not by any means the whole story, though it is a very remarkable story in itself. The House will forgive me, but it is always left to me to try to restore the balance in these Debates. Complaint has been made that hon. Members have left it to the Minister to reply; that should not be taken as an indication that they have given little thought to this matter but rather as showing that they have confidence in the Government and in the Minister.

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine those figures again, and say whether, in the light of the restoration in cuts and everything else that has happened in the last five years, an increase of is. 6d. a week in the wage-rates gives him any satisfaction?

Mr. Brown: I would not accept that statement of the position—that it works out on the basis of is. 6d. a week. That may be so with regard to wage-rates, but when I spoke of wage-rates I added that it was not the whole of the story. Rates and total earnings are two different things, and total earnings are infinitely higher than that, as every industrial Member knows. In those industries where nominally full time, but with much overtime, has been worked, the earnings are much higher. If the Opposition are going in for propaganda on the basis of an increase of is. 6d. a week, they had better not do it in those areas where the men who have had the advantage of these industrial agreements are getting much more than is. 6d.a week increase.
Take the question of mechanisation. The coal mining industry is an outstanding example of the application of mechanisation to industry, and the speedy mechanisation. When I was Secretary for Mines the highest mechanised district was Fife, where the mechanisation was as high as 75 per cent., as contrasted with other districts where it was as low as 28, 30 or 35 per cent. There has since been a rapid increase. The assumption that the result of mechanisation is to decrease employment over the whole field of employment is quite fallacious. The assumption made by the hon. Member for Aberdare, as I gathered from his rather incautious sentence, that this is so over the whole of our industries is not borne out by the facts. Let us look at the position in one or two of the new industries and one or two of the old. Side by side with the application of mechanisation to coal mining, and the greater output of the mines with a smaller number of workers on the books, there is a greater amount of employment provided in other industries. That is why we have seen the growth of some new industries. Further, I do not gather that any of the miners' Members are ready to say that under any other system of mine working—non-mechanised—this country would be able to hold its own in the markets of the world. It may be that if the mines had not been mechanised the total output of coal, nearly 250,000,000 tons, might have been much less and we might have found it much harder to hold our own during the hard struggles of the last 15 years.
There are two sides to every problem. Not only have we to have a new balance


in terms of production but, as a result of the new organisation that we call rationalisation, we have to hold markets that otherwise might be lost. Let me quote a judgment of what hon. Members opposite will regard as having been an impartial inquiry. I have here the last report of the League of Nations Economic Section, about production and prices. If hon. Members will look at it in the Library, they will find on page 37 this considered judgment:
The more or less continuous process of 'rationalisation' appears, as a rule, to have been enhanced during the course of the depression, and particularly the early stages of recovery. Technical improvements of this kind, it is frequently assumed, have contributed to decrease the demand for labour and have thus tended to increase unemployment. It is true of course that a rapid improvement in methods of production may have such effects in the short run for obviously a smaller number of workers is needed to produce a given volume of goods.
A standing illustration of this is the mining industry, as hon. Members will realise; but let me end this quotation with the other side of the story. This is how the League sums up:
On the other hand the volume of production itself is in the long run affected by increases in efficiency of labour and reductions in costs of production. The resulting increase in total output creates directly and indirectly opportunities of work both in industry itself and in other branches of economic activity. 'Rationalisation' understood in this broad sense is indeed the principal factor contributing to the rise of productivity and thus to national income per head of population.
I believe that impartial judgment to be sound on the whole situation and, taking a broad view of British industry, I would say it is a true judgment over the whole field.

Mr. Collindridge: So the miners are better off?

Mr. Brown: I have not said that, but there is no question that the miners in work are better off.

Mr. Collindridge: What about the miners who are out of work?

Mr. Brown: That may be, but I am pointing out that the miners in work are better off, as would be seen if I produced figures of the comparisons over the last three years since selling schemes became effective, and since there has been regulation of output. Hon. Members who supported regulation of output cannot

object to other measures of reorganisation which raise the output per shift and the total average earnings per year.

Mr. Dunn: And profits.

Mr. Brown: Yes. I do not understand hon. Members' objection to profits. I should have said that their objection would be to losses.
That is the problem. Let me show what is happening because of the discovery of the new machines. Let us take the motor car and aircraft industries. As a result of labour-saving machinery and of rationalised methods of production, they have greatly reduced their costs of production and have constantly increased production. Between 1923 and 1938 the numbers employed in those industries increased by 109 per cent. Take the motor car industry. One well-known organisation employed 55 men per car in 1922, and eight men per car in 1934, while the total number of people employed in the works rose from 3,000 in 1922 to 16,000 in 1934. I understand that there has been a further improvement over the figures of 1934. Moreover, the development of the motor vehicle has resulted in a development of motor transport and a constant increase in employment there, which has more than outweighed the decrease in the number employed in the railway service and horse transport. In the 15 years 1923–38, employment rose by 22 per cent., almost wholly owing to a reduction in the price of its; products, mainly as a result of the application of scientific methods and of improvements in organisation and machinery. Again, take the electrical industry. In the whole range of manufacture of electrical apparatus, the numbers employed increased by 154 per cent. in the years 1923–38. In many sections of the industry mechanisation and rationalisation have been widely extended. Moreover, it is noteworthy that one result of the great increase in the manufacture of electrical appliances for sweeping and cleaning has been an increase of employment in the brush and broom industry.
It may be said: These are all new industries; what about the old ones? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cotton."] I do not suppose that anyone is going to ask me for another inquiry into the cotton trade. So many inquiries have been made into the very industries which are contracting


and which give rise to new problems. I will, however, take the grain milling industry. A considerable number of the less efficient mills have been closed down as a result of the concentration of production in more modern and better equipped establishments, but the number of workpeople increased by 21 per cent. during the years 1933–38. In the glass bottle industry, again, which was affected very much by the encroachment of automatic machinery upon hand labour, the number of workpeople employed increased by 21 per cent. during the years 1923–38,

Mr. A. Edwards: What about shipping?

Mr. Brown: Hon. Members always pick out the things which suit their case, but I want to talk about a few matters which they do not often think about. They are asking me to inquire into all industries. In the tailoring industry, as is well known, machinery is rapidly displacing hand labour, but nevertheless there has been an increase during the last 15 years of nearly 18 per cent. in the total number employed. I could give a long list, not of new, but of old industries to make good my case that, when it is assumed that the whole effect of rationalisation and mechanisation is to displace labour, the broad truth is otherwise. It is true that in some industries, especially the coal industry, there has been a contraction, but I do not think the House would ask me to enter upon a large inquiry on the basis, which I cannot accept, that economic conditions are responsible, when three great inquiries have been held during the last 20 years. The roots of the industry's troubles lie, not merely in these islands, but far overseas.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the problem of the older men?

Mr. Brown: Hon. Members say that I raised great hopes, and that is another thing which makes me very chary about inquiries. I was a very fortunate Minister in 1937, because I had had two and a half years, and in those two and a half years we had shown an almost continuous increase of employment and decrease of unemployment. But I saw that there was a problem inside that figure, the problem of that 300,000 as it is now, 500,000 as it was then, who had been unemployed for a long time, the problem of the older

men. But the moment one began to examine it in every single district one found the most extraordinary variations. I found that the assumption generally held, that age everywhere was a bar against employment, was not true at all. In some districts it was a disadvantage to be young and not old. The hon. Member for Aberdare used one sentence which led me to believe that he was aware of that himself. When I came to deal with the most difficult of all industries in terms of employment and unemployment, docks and harbours, in area after area I found that the bias was not in favour of the young man but of the man of 55 or 60. They were the men who held the jobs. As I warned the House in answer to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), there was no general case of disadvantage to elderly men throughout the country, though it is true that in Durham and South Wales and in the mining districts their case is harder perhaps than in any other trade. But I took what administrative steps were possible through the machinery of the Ministry of Labour and called the attention of "employers to the case of men of 45 and over. [An HON. MEMBER: "With what result?"] A number of older men in various areas got jobs. Not only that, but a number of local committees have made inquiries and investigations and made special application to employers on behalf of individual elderly men
But I find it difficult to deal with some hon. Members opposite because they always want to assume that there is a general policy which will apply everywhere to everyone. There is no such policy. [An Hon. Member: "There is one."] I am not by nature a sceptic, but about that I remain entirely sceptical. There are other methods of dealing with it, but I cannot expect that hon. Members opposite will ask me to make inquiries into that kind of method even if it meant that every single unemployed man would disappear from the unemployment books. On the whole I think they will take what we have got and trust to the policies which we have successfully carried out in many directions. Perhaps they will take comfort from the fact that in the last two days in the columns of the "Times" one of the major prophets has been making prophecies which have caused a good deal of comfort to one side of the Ministry of Labour and a good deal of perturbation


to the other, for if it is true, as Mr. Keynes says, that in the next year or two we shall be able to scrap all the schemes for the unemployed, there will be no need for an inquiry. On the other hand, there will be a problem of very great magnitude indeed in finding skilled men. I do not think the House will expect me to accept the terms of the Amendment. I trust that the months that are ahead of us will verify the comforting prophecies made in these two articles, and that when we next debate this subject we shall see a very large decrease in the number of our unemployed.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to keep the House for more than a moment or two, but I have been brought to my feet by what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He started by saying that my hon. Friends on this side were divided on this matter, because some wanted an inquiry but were not sure what the solution was, and others did not want an inquiry because they knew what the solution was. The right hon. Gentleman has rejected the proposal for an inquiry, so we assume that he knows what the solution is. When is he going to apply it? There are 1,750,000 out of work in Great Britain, and they are waiting for the application of a solution. But the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that was a bit of by-play on his part.
There were one or two things he mentioned that ought to be replied to. He ought not to have treated us to a repetition of the Conservative Central Office propaganda. We have heard the story about the Post Office savings and the National Savings over and over again. It has been answered so often that the right hon. Gentleman really ought not to bore the House with the same argument again. He knows that reputable statisticians, like Professor Bowley and Mr. Colin Clark, have shown over and over again that these investments are made by well-to-do people; and the right hon. Gentleman's statement is, in fact, a complete falsification of the position. He ought not to come to the House with that cheap provincial debating society stuff on an important matter of this kind.
I was chiefly interested in the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with the effect on unemployment

of war expenditure. He gave the impression that had it not been for the unfortunate effects of this expenditure in other countries, unemployment would have been practically abolished. Does he really expect the House to believe that? In 1929 unemployment in America reached astronomical proportions, but never was the world less apprehensive than then of a major conflict. From 1930 and 1931 until 1933 unemployment in Great Britain was well over the 2,000,000 mark, but there was no major conflict. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that unemployment at that time was due to the existence of international disturbances? What, then, is the cause of it? The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting now that were it not for the fact that there have been these disturbances in foreign affairs unemployment would have been wiped out. Then, what was the cause of unemployment at that time? The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has been talking plain rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the International Labour Office, but he ought to quote the result of their investigation into the economic crisis of 1929–31. He would have been able to show to the House—it would have been very disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House— that the crisis was caused almost entirely by an increase in the volume of production goods all over the world with no proportionate increase in the consumption of consumption goods.

Mr. E. Brown: I do not mind the hon. Member's conclusions, but he really must not expect the House to believe that that is an analysis of that report. Any hon. Member who reads Mr. Harold Butler's formidable report will realise that there were two elements disturbing him on the economic side. The first was the disequilibrium between manufacturing production and primary production, and more than that. The item which was at the back of all minds was the reduction of primary prices.

Mr. Bevan: These were not primary but derivative. This was one of the consequences of the situation exposed in the first report, which pointed out that the production of America had increased by 42 per cent., and the consumption of goods had increased by only 12 per cent.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two reports. He is apparently


quoting the report of the Economic Section of the League itself and not the report from the International Labour Office, which has a chart inside the cover showing the points which I was making.

Mr. Bevan: The verisimilitude with which the right hon. Gentleman described the volume and used Mr. Butler's name is no evidence in support of his contention. The report is in the Library, and the report that he has quoted is that of Professor Maynard Keynes, whose main contention during the past few years has been that, in the normal functioning of capital, there is an excess of savings on the part of the capitalist class, who cannot find sources of investment because consumption is inadequate. He uses an enormous number of figures, and, with little understanding, regards them as an analysis of the situation. He knows that since 1922 there have never been fewer than 1,000,000 unemployed, and yet he suggests to us that the reason why we are not having a wiping out of our unemployment is that big men like Hitler and Mussolini are running over the world, and that when there were no big men we had no unemployment.
There is another factor which seems to answer him completely. Towards the end of last year we had the full benefits of the appeasement policy of the Government. At the moment when the Prime Minister was most successful, the unemployment figures started to go up. Last year they went up at a time when the Prime Minister was appeasing everybody, which is òpposite to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He told us that were it not for war-time policies unemployment would be wiped out, but last year, when the Prime Minister was appeasing everybody, more people were out of work. The facts disprove his contention entirely.
We want an inquiry in order that the right hon. Gentleman might be asked to direct his attention to one peculiar aspect of his policy—and it is one that Professor Maynard Keynes pointed out—that at this moment, when the Governments of Europe are about to spend large sums of money upon production of goods of various kinds, everybody is anticipating that unemployment will be wiped out. Why is it? Why has war to come or to be feared before unemployment can be

wiped out? Is it by fear that the Government are providing a market for goods by which private industry cannot profit? Have we to look to fear and not to confidence for a customer? My hon. Friends are contending that private industry cannot find a customer and that the State must step in and provide that market.
The right hon. Gentleman has quoted figures purporting to show that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) was wrong in saying that rationalisation was a direct cause of unemployment. It is true that increases of employment can be shown over the last century, as methods of production have improved, but if you worked the existing technique of production with the same number of hours that were worked in 1850, you would have a colossal unemployment problem. One of the reasons why technical improvements have resulted in such enormously increased unemployment is that the working classes of Great Britain and Europe have imposed shorter hours of labour for themselves upon the employers. Improved machinery has not displaced more workpeople, because society has decided to take the increased production more in the form of increased leisure than in increased standards of consumption, although there has been, at the same time, an increase in the standards of comfort.
The Trades Union Congress, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and many other unions in this country have suggested to the Government that one way to deal with the problem of 1,750,000 unemployed is by reducing the hours of labour; in other words, by applying the classical and traditional method of providing a market for increased technical capacity by working fewer hours at the machinery. There is still a doubt whether you should take increased wealth production in the form of higher standards of production or of fewer hours, but you can take it in one way or the other. It has been taken, traditionally, in both. That is one of the main answers to the right hon. Gentleman—but a Conservative always uses as an argument to-day the reforms that we forced him to accept yesterday.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that an inquiry is justified into that aspect of the matter? Is it not clear to him, as I think it is to hon. Members


opposite when they are not thinking in party terms and are discussing these matters privately, that what is Wrong is not the fact that there are 1,750,000 unemployed but that the wrong people are unemployed. If unemployment were taken at the beginning and at the end of life, and not in the middle, what we now regard as unemployment would merely be increased years of leisure or of education. Is there anything wrong about that approach to the problem?
The right hon. Gentleman himself said in his peroration that there were enough bogy men to frighten us all into work and that in a few months' time we should all be working. It seems the essence of stupidity that we cannot put all our people to work except under the stimulus of fear and it therefore seems that the right hon. Gentleman is facing this problem frivolously. He has not answered the speeches from this side of the House and has relied on the public mind being diverted by fears of foreign Powers in order that he can get away with an exceedingly cheap speech. Although hon. Members on the other side have not spoken, I hope they will not allow their Minister to fob the House off with an unworthy performance.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Unfortunately I could not get an opportunity of putting a point before the Minister spoke, but it is now necessary to make a couple of remarks about the Minister's speech. I consider it disgraceful that by using a multiplicity of figures the Minister should have refrained from making any reference to the basic industries, such as iron and steel, textiles, shipbuilding and engineering. Those are the things that matter, not playing about with glass bottles and radios. As to the savings of the working people, a considerable amount credited to them is an indication of their sense of insecurity. If a chartered accountant were asked to give a statement of the position of a business and gave only the one column of the figures showing the assets, the first question we should ask would be "Where is the other column of figures showing the liabilities?" A business might have very formidable and very imposing assets, yet be on the verge of bankruptcy, owing to the nature of its liabilities. Why did the Minister not give the figures of the debts of the working

class as well as of its savings? There is a greater increase in the percentage of debts among the working class than there is of savings. Will the Minister deny that statement? Will he make an inquiry into the savings and debts of the working class? Let the Minister go to any industrial area at the week-end and see the tallymen and shilling-a-week men travelling round. There are loads of debts everywhere. I have mentioned that some workers have some savings and no debts. Some have some savings and little debts. Some have no savings at all, and all debts. Taking the question as a whole, I can never accept the figures which the Minister gave as representing any picture of the financial position of the working class.
The Minister ought to remember that last year we were informed, in the Report of the Unemployment Statutory Committee, that the amount of relief being paid did not meet the needs of the unemployed. A situation such as the present, where there is a continuance of the unemployment problem and the needs of the unemployed are not being met, demands an inquiry. The Minister of Health is running a campaign for physical fitness. Is it not necessary to have an inquiry into the question of unemployment from the point of view of its effects on physical fitness? The Secretary of State for War was faced with a continual increase in the number of young men who were rejected when they applied to enter the Army. What did he do? He had to make a special category to take in those who were unfit. They are given special training and special food to bring them up to standard. Does not this show the need for an inquiry into the conditions of the unemployed in relation to physical fitness?
There is at the present time a great deal of talk about discussions between this country and the Soviet Union, in order to save peace. Would it not be well for us to make a study of the conditions obtaining in the Soviet Union? There they have large-scale mechanisation, not to put profits into the pockets of the armaments makers or to provide interest for big financial houses, but to improve the conditions and the standards of the people. Recently, an expert has been brought to Scotland to coach and train the Scottish Amateur Athletic Association. He has had wide experience in various


countries, and he was able to say in the Scottish Press that Russia leads the world in physical fitness. That can be seen by anybody who cares to visit Russia. Look at the young men and young women and see the build of them; look at the spirit and the enthusiasm which they have as they go about their ordinary avocation. That man, who has had very great experience in all countries, said that Russia leads the world in physical fitness, but Britain takes sixth place. That is a disgrace which ought to be considered by all of us. That is something which ought to be stamped in all our minds. At a time when there is a campaign for physical fitness and so much talk about national unity, there are masses of the population who are in such a position that Britain can only take sixth place in physical fitness.
Does not this show the need for an inquiry into unemployment and the part it plays in robbing masses of our people of health and vitality? I know that many hon. Members opposite are not very concerned about this question. The fact that we can have a discussion of the subject and not one Member opposite speak in it, is an indication of their small interest in it. They are completely indifferent. If it were some question affecting profits, if it were a question of subsidies to this, that or the other big interest, hon. Members opposite would be most active.
On this vital question, affecting the lives of the masses of the people of this country, surely there is need for an inquiry. The Minister has side-tracked the whole question and has shown a complete lack of understanding of this problem, affecting so many millions of our people—the unemployed, and their families. I say that the fact that we can have a well-known figure in the athletic world, who has made a wide study of this question, presenting us with the statement that Britain takes sixth place from the point of view of physical fitness should be enough to satisfy the Minister that

there is need for an inquiry into this matter, in order, as the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) said, to provide schemes of a character that will completely eliminate the problem of unemployment and the poverty and distress that go along with it.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"

The House proceeded to a Division; Captain WATERHOUSE and Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and there being no Tellers for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1939,

CLASS 1.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding£313,309, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.